Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 41

9/11 by Noam Chomsky
The scholarly text, 9/11, written by Dr. Noam Chomsky should be added to the book section. 67.173.87.139 (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it about? Is it well-accepted in academic and journalistic fields?  We're kind of discussing what the purpose of the "Books" section is, above, so perhaps you could chime in there. --Haemo (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is about 9-11. Yes, it is accepted by academia, you can find it on university bookshelves across the country. The purpose of a book section is to have facts of a subject in print so that each can be checked against the public record. GuamIsGood (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean like, what does it discuss regarding 9/11. Lots of stuff is on bookshelves &mdash; that doesn't mean it's authoritative.  Currently, the "Books" section appears to be confused &mdash; is it additional references?  If they are references, why aren't we citing them?  Is it a "further reading" section?  No one knows! --Haemo (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The book section is always comprised of any materials written about the subject of an article. 9-11 by Noam Chomsky is an authoritative text.  I repeat that you can find it at the Harvard Book Store http://www.harvard.com/ and Noam Chomsky is a leading political writer who has contributed to the national dialogue for forty plus years. GuamIsGood (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not &mdash; that's patently untrue. And I would point out that the Havard Book store also sells What the Bleep Do We Know, so you're not really convincing me here. --Haemo (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convince you. You have no power over reversion here. The book is a historical treatment complete with citation written by an accreditted professor about the attacks. So I added it. GuamIsGood (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to even try to get consensus for your edits, then I don't know what you even bothered posting here. You haven't addressed any of my concerns, nor have you made a compelling arguments.  I know others object to this inclusion (not me, personally) but I don't endorse it based on what you're arguing here. --Haemo (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Noam Chomsky is an accredited authority. 9-11 is a work on the subject of 9-11 and is in mass circulation. I added it to a book list in need of expansion. What exactly are your concerns? GuamIsGood (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, this scathing review by the Library Journal, for instance, advising libraries against stocking it:
 * "MIT-based Chomsky revolutionized linguistics in the late Fifties, but for nearly as long he has been better known as an energetic and constructive debunker of American establishment politics and behavior. However, the current Chomsky contributes nothing to the legacy he established decades ago. These two most recent productions do not reveal systematic efforts to sustain or develop any aspect of his prolifically expressed critique; indeed, they are not so much authored as collaged, with Chomsky's sanction, from talks, after-talk Q&As, and interviews with generally converted interlocutors. Understanding Power draws mainly on vintage utterances from the Nineties, and its most penetrating passage takes on, of all pressing matters, literary theory. Chomsky, who is relentless in condemning the media as incapable of any function other than converting the masses to elite desires, just as relentlessly samples mainstream reporting sources for instances of corporate and government ill doings. In trying to illustrate that he is not a crude conspiracy theorist, he conveys the opposite impression. The shorter 9-11 could not have been planned, of course, though it mostly consists of interviews conducted while the calendar still read September, suggesting both the urgency Chomsky felt to get his perspective on the record and his utter disinclination to reexamine any of his cemented opinions about world affairs. Chomsky condemns the attacks specifically and then suggests that the deaths are entirely the responsibility of capitalist globalization, which nonetheless he asserts is irrelevant to the September 11 actors. However, consistency is even less a priority for Chomsky than humility. Apparently, Chomsky believes that he has discovered the concept of blowback, not to mention imbalance in coverage of the perpetual Israeli-Palestinian murder-and-misery fetish. For him, a direct line runs from Reagan's mining of Nicaragua's harbors to the flying of commercial airliners into buildings. 9-11 is a worthwhile purchase for public libraries intent on demonstrating (or risking) balance; Understanding Power is not half as useful as Chomsky's earlier, authentic innovations in political literature, especially Manufacturing Consent (coauthored with Edward Herman). Libraries truly wishing to ensure representation of the most lucid nonconventional opinion should first check that their subscriptions to the Nation a proud carrier of Chomsky for 40 years are current. Scott H. Silverman, Bryn Mawr Coll. Lib., PA Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc."
 * That sounds, uh, less that "authoritative" in any sense of the work. Simply being about 9/11 and being in circulation is not enough here &mdash; we want an authoritative, accurate, and comprehensive list.  Not "any" book on the subject.  --Haemo (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We can cite unpublished librarians editorials all day, but the point is that 9-11 is relevent and if it is not included here in the article on 9-11 we, as editors, are doing a great diservice to the Wiki mission. GuamIsGood (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly...Noam Chomsky is a linguist and political activist. The "unpublished" editorial you talk about is actually published and has been compiled by Amazon in its reviews. Every book need not be mentioned and politically motivated groaning and whining of a specialist in languages has little bearing on the subject at hand. BTW, I have read the book...his "theories" have holes so large you could fly an airliner through them (pun intended)... — BQZip01 —  talk 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, we have the editorial of one man in Scott H. Silverman who wrote his opinion in the Library Journal and of another editor who intends unscrupulous puns. I REPEAT: Noam Chomsky is an accredited academian with an extensive list of circulated scholarly works who wrote a book completely analyzing the 9-11 attacks. GuamIsGood (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed both added books, as no consensus was reached. Until you have consensus of atleast a notable majority, they should not be added. --Tarage (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first book was not added recently! What are You doing? There was no consensus to remove it. Please re-add it. Also, I guess you, Tarage, do not think it is right to have the book 9-11 about 9-11 in the book list either. It would be easier to have a consensus if you stated your position on the texts relevency. Why? GuamIsGood (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one concurs with your opinion. Ergo, there is a consensus to remove it. How was my pun in any way "unscrupulous"? Did I lie? cheat? steal? violate the law in some other manner? Just because the subject of the book is about 9/11, it doesn't mean it should be included here (see above). — BQZip01 —  talk 03:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about the first book. I apologize, and re-added it. As for the second book, consensus is required to add it. It has been stated above that Noam Chomsky has quite a bit of controversy surrounding him. Unless you have consensus from a majority of the editors here, you should not blindly add things. But, it appears an outside source has re-added the book. I will abide by the standards we agreed to earlier and not engage in an edit war over it, but I still disagree with it's addition with no consensus. I would ask that you yourself remove it because of this. --Tarage (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Chomsky stays. I don't agree with everything Chomsky says either, but he shouldn't be blackballed. And the above book review is pure opinion, nothing more. He definitely qualifies to have his pertinent book listed here. SkeenaR (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a pure opinion by an academic organization saying that the work is of poor quality and hastily constructed, and which advises public libraries against buying the book. Are we at least not at the standards of your local library? --Haemo (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Heamo, you should lighten up. Does that one outfit have the final word? I think not. Chomsky is a pretty popular fellow, and I know he meets criteria for inclusion. SkeenaR (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a member of the Chicago Public Library, I am proud to say that 9-11 is on our shelves. GuamIsGood (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a member of the Los Angeles Public Library, I proudly point out that we have the book in English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese. So there! Los Angeles rules!


 * The library does not have Chomsky books I used to own, like "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax." Oh, well.


 * Wowest (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is lacking to add him. I would ask that you remove it. --Tarage (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a tie. SkeenaR and I v. Haemo and ?. Tarage could make consensus.GuamIsGood (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is FAR too quick to find consensus. This has only been going for less than a day. Four editors, even if they completly agree, do not make consensus on an article as large and important as this one. --Tarage (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you rethink your position. Keeping a book by him out of the list seems frivolous. He meets all criteria for inclusion. SkeenaR (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But consensus is lacking I am fully willing to debate his inclusion, but adding him with no consensus so quickly after being sugested is a foolish thing to do. --Tarage (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and what would those criteria be? Why is this section even in this article? I vote to remove it entirely as being completely against the format for articles. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit I too felt it was a tad... troubling. Any book added will probably have PoV one way or the other. I was running under the impression that only the report was included. I don't exactially agree with the other book there, and especially with the one recently added. I second this motion. --Tarage (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) What are the criteria for including books anyway? I didn't see anything in the MOS about that. Personally I think Chomsky's full of crap, but that's not our criteria for inclusion. This debate might be easier if we knew on what basis we were arguing rather than ILIKEIT. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of Chomsky's book is not a question of liking it or not. As this is an historical event, the fact remains that an analysis of it by a credible author is grounds for inclusion. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! What policy/guideline does that criteria fall under? WP:ILIKEIT? or just WP:IAR? — BQZip01 —  talk 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But we can't include every book by every credible author. So how do we choose?  Or do we just say, since we have ~200 references, why do we even need a "Books" section?  I'm all for getting rid of the whole thing.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not debating every book by every credible author. We are discussing a specific text, 9-11, by a specific (world known) author, Noam Chomsky, in a specific article, September 11th attacks. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, books are good. Isn't this supposed to be a helpful resource? SkeenaR (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But right now we have three books. One is already in the references list (9/11 commission report), another is under dispute here.  Our job is not to catalog every book written on the subject, but to provide further reading.  If all the best books are already referenced, why do we need another section on an already overly-long article?  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time figuring out how including a book written specifically about 9/11 by a massively prominent political person like Chomsky can do anything other than improve this article, whether you agree with him or not. SkeenaR (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And it might not be a bad idea to find a couple more books to make a decent section. Books are good for further learning. SkeenaR (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Most sense anyone has made all day. This section should be expanded. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c * 6)The problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion, there is no precedent for adding such a section, there is no policy/guideline that says this section should exist at all. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense dictates that literature pertaining to a historical event is apt in the article about said event. Therefore, the criteria is obvious: A book is included if it is easily obtainable and pertains to the subject of the article. Both of those criteria are met by Chomsky's book. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Easily obtainable" and "pertains to the subject" is criteria which encompasses hundreds if not thousands of books. What sets this one apart, among all others? Considering that, and upon noting that this particular book has been scathingly reviewed, I fail to see how its inclusion would be an improvement to the article. ~ S0CO ( talk 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -Yes, You do. GuamIsGood (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I thought I had raised a legitimate concern, not that I was being "aggressive against all things peaceful or open minded." Work on a collaborative project like Wikipedia goes smoothest when we at least try to assume good faith among our fellow editors. ~ S0CO ( talk 05:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -Excuse me. But it seems that you only consider pieces written by government employees or mainstream journalists legit. I argue that the analysis of a leading academian is also noteworthy because it offers another insight into the events of 9-11. GuamIsGood (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the use of reliable, verifiable, and notable sources, thank you very much. That includes credible reports by governments, journalists, and academics, regardless of their politics. The problem is, we have already pointed out to you that the interview methodology used by Chomsky in this book has been called into question by reliable sources, and you have still not established why the book (not the author) is notable for inclusion in the first place. Simply being on the subject of 9/11 is not enough - that alone does not set the work apart. We are not obligated in any way to include this book, and have some fairly compelling reasons not to at this point. ~ S0CO ( talk 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To assure the inclusion of Noam Chomsky's 9-11 I should address the concern of what sets his work apart from others. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Noam Chomsky is the eighth most cited person ever- ranking before Hegel and Cicero, and the only living person on the list. That sets him apart from others and, I hope, cements his relevency here. GuamIsGood (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I seem crass but... what what does being cited for Arts and Humanities got to do with his inclusion here? Unless I missed your point... --Tarage (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Solution!
List of books about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Simply explain the criteria about the books, it would be a useful list, and it ends the senseless bickering here. — BQZip01 — talk 04:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems like a pretty good idea. Like I said, I can't see how listing books about the event by well known figures can do anything other than improve the encyclopedia. SkeenaR (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an idea, too. Instead of fighting over this, we could spend our time working on the article's references and MOS issues so we can get it nominated for GA. :) Okiefromokla questions? 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes please. Let's start with the first sentence.  It's not linked to a reference for any of its assertions of fact.  Reference -- or remove? User:Pedant (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I do remember correctly, that particular line of discussion was already closed. A UN source was provided supporting the sentence, among many others. Your ongoing refusal to acknowledge them is not legitimate cause to remove the sentence from the article. ~ S0CO ( talk 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seriously. Let's move on already. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. That source does not contain the word suicide, and it is not a reference for the assertion that the attacks were suicide attacks.  You cannot just arbitrarily decide that discussion is closed on whether we need references for assertions of fact in the lead sentence.  There is copious policy that requires assertions of fact to be referenced.


 * Without references, the statement will be removed or edited to remove the uncited statements. Clear policy. Provide a reference, or it will be removed.  This discussion has been ongoing for 2 weeks or so, how long will the entire article take if we take two weeks debating whether we should choose to reference,or choose to remove the statements of fact that are not supported by reference and which have no citation?  It isn't a GOOD ARTICLE if it doesn't cite sources. User:Pedant (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the statement that it was a suicide attack is in any sense "controversial" &mdash; but this source explicitly uses the words "suicide mission" . --Haemo (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Haemo, please read that article again, because it simply does not use the words 'suicide mission' except in an insert that refers to THIS article as the source. User:Pedant (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true.
 * "The twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were constructed to withstand attacks. But the organizers of the September 11 strike devised a plan that had not been anticipated and for which no effective defense had been prepared: to use a large fuel-laden commercial airliner as a highly explosive bomb. No trained airline pilot would willingly fly his or her aircraft into a building full of people, even at gunpoint, but the terrorists had a way around that problem. They would do it themselves, as part of a suicide mission."
 * This does not refer to our article at all. --Haemo (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This source is just endorsing the US goverment's allegations without attributing it to the governemnt. Why can't we attribute it instead? Wiikipedia has no particular authority and cannot andorse this or that account without attribution.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth do you conclude that? Because they agree?  They state it as a fact  &mdash; we have a reliable source explicitly saying "X is true" and your reaction is that we should disregard them because they're just "endorsing" another view without attributing it.  That's totally at odds with our policies, and is a ridiculous argument to boot.  You could disregard any source for any topic on that basis, which is why Wikipedia isn't run on such a principle. --Haemo (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Our policies do not imply in any way that whenever a source says "X" we can write "X" as a fact and without attribution.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little disturbed as to the logic of thought here. There isn't any disagreement that these 19 men were, firstly, present on the flights, broke into the cockpit, and commandeered the plane. The planes subsequently crashed. If it's not suicide attack, what is it? They "accidentally" flew themselves into both Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the ground in Shanksville? I don't get it.
 * There should be no judgment over THE TRUTH from the part of wikipedia. The article should say.: According to US government agency ABC in several statement they made nineteen men .... Then it doesn't matter if that's true or not. Readers know source and can decide for themselves.


 * Stop selling this article as THE TRUTH. Just report what happened as reported by the various thousands of sources. I can understand it may be hard for editors who happen to be US citizens to accept this but we have to face that this is what wikipedia expects from editors. If you can't stomach that I suggest you step aside.


 * Anyway, I can assure you that in this talk page this kind of discussions will never end if you don't start to show NPOV judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "When they all come, we finish it off." -- VegitaU (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given up trying to use logic to attack such an illogical argument. --Tarage (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I and others have addressed these "problems" ad nauseum, but for the sake of clarity, let's talk about it.
 * "There should be no judgment over THE TRUTH from the part of wikipedia." I'll grant you that. What is in the article needs to be verifiable, which this "contested" section is.
 * "The article should say.: According to US government agency ABC in several statement they made nineteen men ...." "Attributed" doesn't mean every sentence has to explain where it comes from. That is what footnotes are for. If you want to know where it came from, check the given reference.
 * "Stop selling this article as THE TRUTH." It is verifiable. It's truthiness is irrelevant.
 * "Just report what happened as reported by the various thousands of sources." Already done.
 * "I can understand it may be hard for editors who happen to be US citizens to accept this but we have to face that this is what wikipedia expects from editors. If you can't stomach that I suggest you step aside...I can assure you that in this talk page this kind of discussions will never end if you don't start to show NPOV judgment." Please read policy and guidelines for Wikipedia. Your personal interpretation is at odds with application of them. If you do not like them, you are welcome to try and change those policies/guidelines, but this is not the place for such discussion. — BQZip01'' —  talk 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument about "attribution" and footnotes is incorrect and misleading. If the goverment of the state X says "Y" we cannot just write "Y" as a fact and put the footnote, we cannot because this would mean that we are endorsing what the government is saying. Instead we have to say "the government says Y". It is completely irrelevant wheter we or the journalists trust the government. I don't think this obvious thing can be denied in any way.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you seriously contend that any of the innumerable facts reported as fact by reliable sources are not true, then provide a reliable source disputing them. Your proposal gives absolutely massive undue weight to minority views about 9/11 &mdash; which completely violates our policies.  It's equivalent to rewriting Apollo 11 to begin "The Apollo 11 mission was, according to the US government, allegedly the first manned mission to land on the Moon." It's not going to happen. --Haemo (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NO. The burden is on the person adding the facts to cite references. Any unreferenced facts can be removed by any editor. That's what the policy is. User:Pedant (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth is irrelevant. We just have to report the positions of various parties involved. You assume certain facts are true because they are reported by reliable sources. Other may disagree. This article is not the place to claim anything reported is true or not true. In this article we need to report.
 * NPOV clearly states that prevailing positions need to be reported in a balanced way, without promoting any one of them as the truth and others as wrong interpretations of the truth.
 * I find this article is defended by US citizens who seek to establish their and their government's version of the facts as THE TRUTH. This is unfortunate and POV. I'm looking forward to the day this article will be NPOV although I feel it probably won't happen in my lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a policy. Read it &mdash; it clearly explains that we do not give undue weight to minority views.  It is not the "truth" we are defending here &mdash; it's the version which is supported by reliable sources (another policy).  If "others disagree" then provide a reliable source disagreeing.  The simple fact that "others disagree" is not a reason to compromise how an article is written as that, plain and simply, violates our policies.  You say a lot about NPOV but you don't actually appear to understand that policy at all.  PS: not a US citizen, but anyone who reads my actual contributions instead of this endless discussion would know that. --Haemo (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you seriously contend that any of the innumerable facts reported as fact by reliable sources are not true, then provide a reliable source disputing them. Your own words. Truth seems to be an important part of the equation.
 * I'm sure the conspiracy theorists commenting on the burning of the Reichstag were considering a minority view during the 30's as well.
 * As a belgian citizens I known how it feels when your own governments sets up false flag operations against it own population. As of today none of these operations have been proven to be false flag operations but it is the majority view. Btw, notice how balanced that article is compared to this one.


 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints...in this case it isn't a significant viewpoint. In other words, there's no public conversation/debate about what really happened, no political debate...no mainstream debate among scholars, civil engineers or architects. There's no debate among those expert reliable sources that we draw content from...the coverage that exists is limited to a description of a cultural artifact and doesn't go beyond that.
 * We've been over this a lot, and there's a limit to how often we have to repeat these concepts. These topics are under a Arbcom resolution and if this constant repetition doesn't stop I will ask for Arbitration enforcement. RxS (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A 2006 poll says nearly half of the respondents put some kind of blame with the Bush administration of the 9-11 attacks. This does not make alternative views more credible yet it does make it harder to contend they are minority views. Also, I'm assuming this poll is not a source worth mentioning according to the people who have high-jacked this article.
 * Enforce (read: oppress) whatever you want. This article reads like US propaganda and your enforcement won't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse other people of things like "oppressing" others, or defending actions comparable to the Riechstag fire. "Blame" can mean anything from incompetence to CIA-Mossad laser beams.  It's not reflected in reliable sources, and still comprises a fringe theory. --Haemo (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much done with putting up with this sort of stuff. Please review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories and consider this a warning as required in the remedy section. After the Mongo thing, I'm not going to be shy about requesting remedys. RxS (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, enough is enough. I know that User:Aude is on the verge of giving up, and I know I am too.  After the underwhelming ArbCom case, we've really got to bring this to a conclusion in some fashion &mdash; it's wasting everyone's time. --Haemo (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just what makes the 9-11 attacks different from the Reichstag fire? They had a suspect back then too. I'm sure there was an abundance of reliable sources and government sources back then too. Reporting on this kind of events, like the 9-11 attacks, the Reichstag fire, the Nijvel gang or the Aldo Moro assassination is walking a fine line. Jeez, did anyone notice how only the 9-11 article labels alternative views as conspiracy theories (which is obviously NPOV)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.106.183 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough. This is not a soapbox and you've moved rather far from discussing improvements to the article.  This is not productive. --Haemo (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even read that poll you cited? People blame Bush and Clinton administrations for failures to prevent it&hellip; not for causing it. The very poll itself says "terrorists" as a separate entity from the U.S. Government. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The US government has defined the word 'terrorist' in such a way that the US government or its agents can never be terrorists according to the legal definition, even if they behave in a way that would be called 'terrorist' if it were any other entity besides the US govt or its agents. User:Pedant (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've referred the IP to Arbitration enforcement. As I've said, time permitting I'm not going to be shy about asking for arbitration enforcement on these topics. We don't have to put up with insults, soapboxing, repeating the same issues over and over etc anymore. RxS (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've been too soft on this disruption. What else do we need to do before nominating for GA status? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is that little matter of unreferenced assertions of fact in the lead sentence. It sure would be nice to finish up with that and move on to the second sentence and more... User:Pedant (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been over it. Your suggestion does not follow policy and will not help us improve the article.  You've been referred to the correct places to get policy changed.  That's pretty much all there is to say.  --Haemo (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It isn't a suggestion. Uncited assertions will be removed. That's the policy.  We don't need a new policy, just cite the references. (real references not just "Oh here, read this read that, we've been over this" but actual references that actually make the claim reflected by the assertions in the article.)  As an admin, Haemo, I would think you were familiar enough with policies that you wouldn't be dragging your feet over my request that we actually follow them. User:Pedant (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am. Your suggestion is at odds with policy because you reject the references which have been provided for reasons which are not based in policy &mdash; the assertion is not "uncited" it is cited to references you don't believe are valid for one reason or another.  Continually arguing a point which is at odds with policy, and which numerous editors have told you so is pointy and disruptive.  You are well aware that these articles will not be toleranting such disruption, so I suggest you think carefully about continuing this argument. --Haemo (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are so sure that the alleged "suggestion" do not follow policies then please stop repeating it and cite the text of the policy you are referring to.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the link if any one is interested: RxS (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Add the book, this is ridiculous. He is an accredited author.  --Green-Dragon (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominate or Not?
Now that the most disruptions are protected against, we can focus on improving the remainder of the article. What else do we need to do to nominate this article for GA status? What do we need to include/exclude, cite, etc.? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See this section. There's a list there of 9/11 books that could be added to the book section, and I was hoping others would check them over before we added them. Other changes needed:
 * Some articles are wikilinked more than once (only the first mention of something important should be wikilinked). For example, the 9/11 commission report, should be wikilinked only once.
 * There are issues with references. For example, reference 17 has only a name with no other information, and one or two others have this problem. I have also noticed that the references are set up in a wide variety of ways. We need to check them to make sure they are streamlined and complete. See Citation templates for how to set up references. Anyone who wants to help out with this but finds the citation templates confusing, go here: Wikicite, or check out the other tools for making citation temps.


 * There's really not all that much work needed, and I really believe the article is close. It may be helpful for other ::editors to do a sort of critique/peer review of what is needed. This does not mean editors can rant about controversial requests currently being discussed in other sections &mdash; keep that out of here. It could be helpful to make a summarizing list for anyone who wants to help work on it. Here, I also proposed a dispute resolution idea that might work as long as editors agree to accept consensus that is made within established policy. I'd like the community on this page to decide if that is something we need, or if we should dive right into the GA nomination. Regardless, we can still work on the technical issues in preparation for the nomination. Okiefromokla questions? 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, dead references. Take a look at the reflist, and check for ones marked dead.  --Haemo (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dead links fixed. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I may look over the article this evening or tomorrow. I had some problems my laptop this weekend, but seems okay now. --Aude (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can generally help out with sourcing, since I have access to a number of good databases and scholarly materials, but I don't have the time to devote to going through the article at the moment with the detail necessary. --Haemo (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything you can do would be good. I can't do much today and on travel this week (NYC/Boston). I'm not comfortable bringing these pages up when in a public cafe, park, or on the train. Anyway, one thing to consider would be reorganizing some of the subpages. The "survivors" page, "non-american causalities" (do we really need that one?), and similar pages could be combined.  Really, the definition of casualities includes both those killed and those injured/involved.  By organizing the subarticles, I think it becomes easier to include good summaries here. I'm still working on it, but have a draft in the works - User:Aude/Casulties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks.  Some of the other subarticles need dire attention. I expect to have a block of time available next weekend to do some copyedits and sourcing. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other sections which are weak include the "responsibility" and "response" and "reaction". The first is much too scattered, with materially liberally distributed all over &mdash; the second two do not seem comprehensive.  They are poorly organized, and a section about the immediate response is scattered or largely missing. I think that one will be a big priority, so we should think about how and where we can source it to begin a draft. --Haemo (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love to fix those sections up. I'll get around to it this week or next, but work and educational obligations are growing. :) Okiefromokla questions? 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should reorganize these as follows &mdash; the article is good up until the second section. We need a more reasonable organization &mdash; I propose we move the damage section before the "fatalities" and combine the "survivors" and "fatalities" sections into the new "casualties" section Aude is drafting. Afterwards, we should put in a new "Immediate response" section, preceding the "responsibility" section.  Finally, we should discuss responsibility, then "aftermath" generally in the save order we do now.  After the reorganization, the organization would look like this:
 * Attacks
 * Damage
 * Casualties and survivors
 * Immediate response
 * Responsibility
 * Aftermath/Immediate reactions
 * Long-term Effects/reactions
 * We also really, really need to include more about the War on Terror in this last section. A lot of the reorganization should be prompted by having a clearer flow of information &mdash; I'm looking at a roughly "timeline" approach for the central structure.  A reader would be guided from the event, through reactions increasingly distant from the event.  However, within each section the reactions would be logically grouped, not chronologically.  I think this provides a much stronger article focus than the current one, which meanders all over, often dealing with some topics too much and others not enough.  This will be the biggest obstacle to a higher rating &mdash; depth of focus needs to be consistent.
 * For example, the "statements by others" section is really out of touch and is like a tiny ghetto of selected opinions without a cogent rationale for why they are there, or why they aren't integrated with the main body.  The "other potential hijackers" section meanders all over, talking about people without explaining why they are important, giving too much depth on some while not enough to others.  Frankly, the "responsibility" section needs a major overhaul. --Haemo (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to the "responsibility" section, I'd like to break it up so that it starts by introducing the immediate reaction to who might be responsible, then segues into the conclusions that are currently discussed. I think a "Planning", "Action/Hijackers", "Motivation" layout would be productive.  I'd also like to include some material about the government's intelligence failures, which are currently stuck in another section. --Haemo (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can do copyediting, grammar and spell-checking. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to help in organization and flow. I can restructure segments as need be - one can look at Global warming for an example of my work. Would immediate response constitute local emergency services, or international response? Because if it is the former, then per chronology I would place it between damage and casualties, not casualties and responsibility. ~ S0CO ( talk 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try and keep it focused. Currently, the section which it leads into is about the attacks &mdash; very focused on just those events.  So, let's try to keep that sort of focus &mdash; the emergency response nationally (and internationally where applicable like Operation Yellow Ribbon) preceding the towers collapse, then afterwards.  Let's keep the focus on just those actors who were involved in responding the attacks.  We can leave all the condemnations and political supports for later &mdash; focus on actual actions taken which were aimed at responding to the developing situation.  For instance, currently we lump in Canada's airspace shutdown with Malaysia expressing its regret for the events.  That's way out of order. --Haemo (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a number of fairly small and I hope uncontroversial edits in sections 1-3. I'm starting to slow down, so I shall stop to rest. If I've made any stupid mistakes, do please correct them. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of Haemo's proposition I suggest this for consideration:


 * 1 Attacks (Delete taxicab/lightpole picture)
 * 1.1 Fatalities (Survivors written into the end)
 * 1.2 Damage
 * 1.3 Memorials (It is a well written section and would tidily cap the Timeline frame)
 * 2 Responses (Open with reworked FDNY Recovery & Response paragraph)
 * 2.1 Public (Open with Public response paragraph)
 * 2.1.1 Muslim Americans
 * 2.1.2 International
 * 2.2 U.S. Government (Open with Immediate national response paragraph)
 * 2.2.1 Legislation
 * 2.2.2 The War On Terror
 * 2.3 Investigations (Write opening paragraph)
 * 2.3.1 9/11 Commission
 * 2.3.2 NIST Report
 * 2.3.3 CIA Internal Review
 * 2.3.4 Conspiracy?
 * 3 Motive (I feel this section is the better segway into defining the perpetraitors/tie in Responsibility paragraph)
 * 3.1 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
 * 3.2 Osama Bin Laden
 * 3.3 Hijackers
 * 3.3.1 Potential hijackers (Meld those denied visas and Others here)
 * 3.3.2 Zacarias Moussaoui
 * 4 Effects
 * 4.1 Health
 * 4.2 Economic
 * 5 References
 * 6 Books
 * 7 See Also
 * 8 Links

What does everyone think? GuamIsGood (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems bizarre to me to put "memorial" before the immediate response. Motive and responsibility should also precede long term effects. I'm not sure "conspiracy?" works best in investigations, since it properly falls under responses. --Haemo (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -In the proposal Responses encompasses Public, U.S., and Investigations, so Conspiracy? falls under Responses. Motive does precede Long term effects. The Memorials tie in is an aesthetic choice. GuamIsGood (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything objectionable in the general structure suggested by GuamisGood(Commentarian) above. User:Pedant (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything horibly wrong with this idea... I think perhaps though that sections #2 and #3 should be switched. That is just my petsional oppinion. --Tarage (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just chopped out a bunch of the "See also" links where were already in the article per the MOnSter. Keep your eyes peeled for other ones &mdash; redundant Wikilinking is a serious issue in this article, and a lot of the links in that sections were hangers-on from less comprehensive versions. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some copyedits and reorganization in the "responsibility" and the "casualties" sections to reduce the bloated TOC (too many subsections). I'm stopping at the motives section for now, but it needs work and be condensed somewhat. --Aude (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More reorganizing is done. Put some rescue/recovery details in the first section ("the attacks"). Then, discuss the hijackers, Al-Qaeda, planning of the attacks, and their motives. This discussion should come before reactions (since we then bring up hate crimes, etc.) and the response/investigations also need to come after the planning/motives/responsibility section. Ordering the other way around (as suggested above) seems like putting the chicken before the egg. It makes sense to then discuss the response, then long-term effects, etc. in the last sections of the article. --Aude (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Before GA
I oppose nomination for good article status at this point. Before we nominate this article for GA (indeed, before we consider the article to be a 'good' article), we need references for the unsourced assertions of fact in the article, in particular I am thinking about the lead sentence. I've been asking for these references for a couple weeks, and it seems that is a reasonable time to delay before removing the unreferenced material.
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

In case I am not making myself clear I am challenging, in the first paragraph, "suicide attacks", "by al-Quaeda" and "upon the United States". I intend to remove any of those three that remains uncited. User:Pedant (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed to you before, and a reference cited. Your objection is noted. --Haemo (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the very first sentence. It has no inline citations.  I've purged my cache and looked at it again.  There are no citations.  They are not there.  Stop wasting my time saying that they are, and just put them there. Or revert my edit when I remove the text, and then put them there, or whatever.  Without citations the text must go. User:Pedant (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that ... pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong.  It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. User:Pedant (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The source has been given to you. If you really want to add an inline citation for something which should be manifestly clear given the other sources provided then go right ahead. --Haemo (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'll do it for you. There.  --Haemo (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was probably best to do so anyway. WP:LEAD states controversial statements should be cited. While it isn't really controversial to believers, it's open to attack by others. Can I strikethrough the "oppose" above? -- VegitaU (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Unless there is a consensus that an editor is disrupting the page, altering another editor's comments is generally frowned upon. Pedant is entitled to their opinion, and there's no harm in it being recorded on this page. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kicked out for being lousy writers? Good lord... --Tarage (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Jimbo, Tarage, I'm just quoting him. I expected the good editors working on this page to be familiar with the quote, or at least to readily ascertain its source. I certainly don't think "bad writing" is grounds for being removed. User:Pedant (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except you have a bad habbit of quoting things way out of context, like in this example. --Tarage (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

fuel capacity
Each of the airliners had a jet fuel capacity of nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons (91,000 liters).


 * Do we have information on how much fuel was actually onboard each craft? User:Pedant (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean at impact.
 * Flight 11 had about 10,000 gallons
 * Flight 175 had about 9,100 gallons
 * Flight 77 had about 10,000 gallons
 * Flight 93 had about 7,000 gallons
 * -- VegitaU (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does this feel suspiciously like a leadin for OR? --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because people just want to argue and say "it was a conspiracy" whereas others just want to state "no it wasn't". Let's stop, this is silly now.  The question being brought up is not was there enough fuel to burn down the WTC's, but rather should the amount of fuel in each plane at the time of impact be present in the article.  Let's stick to that question, and please, editors, do not make this another dispute.  --Green-Dragon (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I appologize for my bad faith. I've just seen far too many innocent questions like this get turned into something else. I'll strike my statement. --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, back to the question asked: I think the reason we haven't put any specific numbers is there is too broad a range of speculative and incorrect information. 767s can carry (as was correctly stated above) about 24K gallons. Many newscasts and papers believed the jets were filled to capacity upon takeoff, but the 9/11 Commission disputes this (only in reference to Flight 11). They say it was loaded with about 14,000 gallons. It used about four-thousand in flight, crashing with about 10,000 left. Many papers say it crashed with 20,000 gallons. As for 757s, they can carry a little more than 10,000 so my source for Flight 77 is probably speculating. I invite other editors to try and find better numbers if you decide to put up the impact fuel loads. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ?????? The fuel is not speculation. There are records of how much fuel was in each aircraft and those figures are accepted by NIST as factual. The capacity of the aircraft is for international flight but these planes were on domestic routes so are never filled with more fuel than they need because of the cost of lifting the extra weight. I believe NIST found the fuel only started the fires but was not a factor itself in the fires intensity. Wayne (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that there are lots of sources which all contradict one another for a variety of reasons. --Haemo (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Haemo. Search "Flight 175" "gallons of fuel" in Google News and you get a huge range of output. It's not speculation, I'm sure, since records are kept by aircraft maintenance and the rest is simple physics, but the newspapers themselves either didn't check or assumed all aircraft are fuel to the max. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I asked the question is that this is an article on the attacks and not about the aircraft and their operational parameters. The amount of fuel the craft could have held is not relevant, what is relevant is the actual amount of fuel on each craft, if we are to discuss fuel at all. It is, as I understand it, not customary to load a plane with more fuel than it needs, to avoid landing with full fuel tanks. In the case of the twin towers, the actual amount of fuel onboard is very relevant, as the fuel is one of the primary potential sources of energy which may have caused the collapse of 3 buildings and death of thousands.

I think that actual fuel loads are preferable total fuel capacity in the context of this article. We have some reliable sources for the actual fuel load don't we? User:Pedant (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and if the Reliable Sources contradict each other, what is it about these sources that makes them "Reliable"? User:Pedant (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources contradict. Plain and simple. The NYTimes will say something; the Post will say another. Best thing to do is find the latest piece that is expected to be more accurate, avoid the issue altogether, or post the contradiction with both sources. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.'
 * The above is clearly policy. When two sources ("with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") disagree, then how do we decide which source is right?  How can a source which is wrong on one detail be a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" to which we can attribute a different detail?   and Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. (which seems to me pretty clear, sources shouldn't be used when the claims they are making are not appropriate to the source... such as when they are not in a position to possess the information for which they are the 'source'.) User:Pedant (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand you here... if even one claim a source makes doesn't match up exactially, the entire source should be concidered invalid? Is that what you are getting at? --Tarage (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedant, et. al, this kind of minutia and policy discussion is exactly what other editors are talking about. Please take it to the appropriate policy page and discuss there. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I appologize for brining it up here. I'll strike my comment. --Tarage (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "minutia"? What do you mean "what other editors are talking about"? This section was specifically created to discuss the fuel capacity mentioned in the article. .(not 'minutia', not 'what other editors are talking about'... I'm talking about the article's content.  The article says: Each of the airliners had a jet fuel capacity of nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons (91,000 liters). I don't see the relevancy of the fuel capacity, however the actual amount  of fuel on each craft does seem relevant.  I've asked if we have reliable sources for the actual amount.  I've questioned the reliability of sources which make conflicting claims.  All of this is relevant to the article.  User:Pedant (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning the "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" of sources which make statements of fact that are not accurate, or are unchecked. Where would one get the idea that such a source "has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking" if it isn't based on their accuracy and their fact checking?   Where can we get the actual facts from?  If we don't have actual facts, shouldn't we not include them?  What is the relevance for the statement about what the fuel capacity is?  User:Pedant (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you seriously think any of the sources used in this article are unreliable then there's a noticeboard to get some outside opinions. The correct way to deal with reliable sources reporting conflicting amounts of fuel is, in the absence of a definitive source, is to state that some sources have differed, and the give the range of values.  Reliable sources make mistakes &mdash; the New York Times makes mistakes &mdash; the does not make it unreliable.  It is this portion of your argument which BQZip told you to drop, and rightly so, since this is not the correct venue for it. --Haemo (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not debating the substance of your initial question (should this sentence be in here?), but your comments regarding policy. I mean that you have a tendency to debate policy/guidelines when this is not the locale for such discussions. You'll notice I included "et. al.", so this isn't specifically applying to you alone. Debates on this page have a tendency to spiral out of control and into areas not related to this article in any way. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I would think we could do better than 'a range of figures' or 'total fuel capacity' is my point. If we even mention the amount of fuel it should be a number that comes from some source that has a reasonable likelihood of being correct, and not widely differing numbers from numerous sources (whether they are reliable sources or not I guess doesn't make any difference to some of you). At some point the planes were fueled, and at that point there is a record of the amount of fuel. Maybe we just state the number from prior to take-off, and let the reader do their own synthesis using 'simple arithmetic' to determine the fuel at impact?

I dispute that I have debated what the policies are on this page. I have not done so, and I support the policies as presently written. '' "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." '' An assertion as to the amount of fuel onboard should come from a source that has the actual figure, and not a number of conflicting sources. User:Pedant (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And when sources conflict, we report differing results. How would we even tell which one has the "actual figure"?  I left my magic truth-telling radar at home today.  --Haemo (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying the NIST is not a reliable source for the fuel? If NIST did not access the records before stating the fuel load in their report then NIST should obviously be removed as a RS. Wayne (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my argument. That is not what I said.  The NIST is obviously a reliable source. --Haemo (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies then as I was misreading you as saying we should use the range reported by sources rather than the actual quantity noted in the NIST. Wayne (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed
 The following is a list of citations needed on various sections of the article. All editors are welcome to help us out in getting verifiable and reliable sources to match these facts. Please read the comments attached and either rewrite or cite the section. Strikethrough the points when they have been cited correctly.

Since this article is so long, all the sections have not been browsed for misleading or missing citations (as of 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)). Anyone can help out by continuing to other sections and verifying every fact or listing them here for other editors to check. -

The attacks
Two of the airliners were flown into the World Trade Center, one each into the North and South towers, one was flown into the Pentagon, and the fourth, whose ultimate target was probably either the White House or the U.S. Capitol building, crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
 * These "allegations", no matter how blatantly clear, need to be cited. Also, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, said Flight 93 was headed for the Capitol, as has been reported later in the article. There's no reason to speculate anymore with the last sentence.
 * I'm not clear which part is asked to be cited? The target of the 4th plane? --Haemo (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, there's a source here with mucho extra info. --Haemo (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression people would dispute the fact that planes crashed in with a fact (from some source) that a missile hit it. Remember the argument above about citing the "suicide attack". -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahah, yeah, the Encarta one will do that. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Using Encarta seems weak. Any number newspapers will do. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

''Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. The south tower (WTC 2) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175. The north tower (WTC 1) collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes.''
 * I was shocked not to find any citations with this. Cite!
 * Here's a source for both times. I don't presume simple arithmetic needs a source. --Haemo (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring mostly to the "structural failure" part. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple arithmetic? Haemo, you are an admin.  (WP:SYNTHESIS) If we allow simple arithmetic in this case then we need to allow it in the case of all of the other mathematical synthesis which can be performed on the data we have.  Policy seems pretty clear and you are dancing around it with your simple arithmetic.  User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. 10 - 8 = 2 is the slippery slope to publishing proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem on Wikipedia.  There's nothing even remotely contentious between noting that the impact occurred at 9:03 and the collapse occurred at 9:59, thus 56 minutes elapsed between the impact and the collapse. Common knowledge does not need a citation &mdash; and that includes elementary numeracy. --Haemo (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Certain kinds of claims should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations." ...specifically mentioned is "claims in areas of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy. This article is the first in the List of controversial issues (see Common knowledge User:Pedant (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fermat's last theorem: nothing wrong with an article about it, but if you want to make an interpretaion of Fermat's last theorem, that's synthesis. User:Pedant (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously stating that the difference between 56 and 39 is an "area of fact or opinion about which there is known to be controversy". Really? --Haemo (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We could just remove that. It's mentioned about, but "structural failure" is really general.  It's like "they collapsed because the building fell down". --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Structural failure explains any case where a structure collapses, unless it was built or intended to be a collapsing structure.  More than that, it implies that the structure was unsound in the first place, an assertion for which I don't think we have a reliable source. 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We need a citation here, not a rewrite. Structural failure caused by: whatever [CITE]. Simple arithmetic was referring to the minutes elapsed, not the collapse. The words "structural failure" and such need a citation. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "caused by the impact" I would prefer "ignited by the explosion of jet fuel upon impact" because fire is not caused by "impact". User:Pedant (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * and simple arithmetic: source says fire started at X o'clock, other or same source says collapse at Y o'clock... synthesis is when we combine these two (by Haemo's 'simple arithmetic')... if we allow THAT as appropriate sourcing we will be allowing "buildings fell at free-fall speed" and other synthesis from applying mathematics to the sourced facts. My sense is that this is something that would be opposed by other editors. 'Haemo's simple arithmetic' puts us on a slippery slope with a tangle of OR at the bottom. User:Pedant (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's absolute nonsense. One is applying simple arithmetic to subject one time from another, with no dispute over them, and no possible source of error or dispute.  The other is applying your knowledge of physics to a complex situation in order draw a conclusion.  They're not even on the same order.  You're stretching here to make a point and you know it.  --Haemo (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that they aren't 'on the same order', but that is the only difference. Both are synthesis.  But both are elementary calculations a competent 5th grader could calculate, and both are synthesis.  Or do you think 'breaking the rules just a little bit' is different from not breaking the rules at all.  We have policies, and this is not the place to try out inventive ways of getting around them.  At least that's my opinion.  I'm certain we can find a source that says how long the tower(s) burned before the collapse(s).  If we can't, and since the arithmetic is so simple, "maybe" we just omit the synthesis and go with the facts as they are, from the sources that provide them. (and let the readers perform their own arithmetic) I'm not "trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point", I'm trying to remind you of a policy that it seems you are ignoring, one which that I know you are aware of.  User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. You're deliberately making an absolutely ridiculous point here.  If a source says "X started at 10:20 and ended at 10:40" we can say "X lasted 20 minutes" without running afoul of our original research issues here.  We're not breaking any rules because no human on the planet earth is going to argue with that calculation &mdash; whereas numerous people have, can, and do argue with amateur physicists trying to apply their knowledge of kinematics to video analysis of a structural collapse.  I mean, above you argue that subtraction is an "area of contention" where there is serious debate.  Get real.  You're wasting everyone's time for no good reason. --Haemo (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

''On United Airlines Flight 93, black box recordings revealed that crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers after learning through phone calls that similarly hijacked planes had been crashed into buildings that morning. According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers. Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03:11 a.m. local time (14:03:11 UTC).''
 * Needs citations pretty much after every sentence.
 * This source is good for the first and last sentence. The CNN source (above) is good for the time (kill the seconds).  This one (need registration) can be used for the middle.  We could just use the first one, or the Encarta source in the article if we changed the wording.  --Haemo (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't use Encarta (I've had problems with these kind of sources in the past) -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't have to -- we can source it as-is. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we include the first sentence, we must include the fact that the recording confirms that passengers never succeeded in entering the cockpit. "According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." is synthesis, we should use the quote from the black box recorder, or provide a source for that particular interpretation  of the words captured on the recording. User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's got a point; it needs a strong citation or multiple citations. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

1,366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower (for more, see List of tenants in One World Trade Center).
 * The citation in the sentence after does not mention this.
 * We may have an error here. USA Today gives different numbers, and contradicts itself in another source.  The New York Times gives others which appear more accurate, given the time elapsed. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the NYTimes source given the time elapsed. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * USA Today: in what sense and by what reasoning is this considered a reliable source? I thought they had a bad reputation regarding fact-checking, not a good one. User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, this isn't the place to discuss it. You've already been advised to take your arguments elsewhere. Don't bring this up any more on here or I'll have to consider it disruptive behavior. You've been warned. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who brought up USA Today, and I have never used USA Today as a source. USA Today has been involved in several well-publicised incidents where there accuracy and/or fact-checking is in question, according to our article on them . User:Pedant (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So has CBS and the NYT. That doesn't make them unreliable.  Take it to the appropriate venue, because you're wasting our time here and you've been warned. --Haemo (talk)
 * I'm just saying, I don't think we should use USA Today as a source, unless we use every  different figure they offer, they don't seem to actually have one number and I'm not comfortable with us choosing one arbitrarily from amongst their contradictory figures. Are you? User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And for Pete's sake, will you guys stop 'warning' me? I acknowlege for the record, right here, that I have been 'warned' several times.  If there's some penalty for insisting that we follow policy then just hit me with it.  Otherwise I am considering these numerous warnings as threats and as behavior disruptive to the collaborative process. User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

''As many as 600 people were killed instantly or were trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (see List of tenants in Two World Trade Center). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed.''
 * Same as above.
 * See above. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

''According to the 9/11 Commission, approximately 16,000 people were below the impact zones in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks. About 92% of those below the impact areas survived, evacuating before the towers collapsed. Of those above the and within the impact zones, only sixteen managed to escape — all from the South Tower.''
 * Cite this. Citation that follows at the end does not mention any of this, but does have some good numbers and can be used elsewhere. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Has similar numbers. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * according to the 9/11 commission (report? interview? seems to be missing a word?) and Of those above the and within the impact zones, (seems to have an extra word?) User:Pedant (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Either is fine. See the quote above to see that pretty much everyone else died in the fire or collapse. And it needs to be cited, Haemo. -- VegitaU (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Of those above the and within the impact zones," is this the wording you want? It seems to have an extra 'the' in it. User:Pedant (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'''This section has been fully cited. Onto the next...'''



ArbCom case
I've looked at the header of this talk page long and hard but I can't find any mentioning of the ArbCom case. I'm wondering why visitors to this talk page are not informed of the fact there is an ArbCom decision regarding this article.

Also, I'm wondering if this and this page give a complete overview of blocked users.
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I'm adding a notice to the top of this page. If someone with more template skills (1,336 of them more than me, to be precise) could convert this to a template, it could then be easily posted to other Talk pages. Thanks, S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject of the ongoing investigation (Part II – Outrage)
''When the north tower collapsed, debris heavily damaged the nearby 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) building. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fires, and the building collapsed later in the day at 5:20 p.m.[21]''

I was away for a while, so I'll be happy to hear how exactly we came to this revision, who decided to work against reached consensus and for what purpose?! Arbcom case was clear; vandals (and that is exactly what we're dealing with here) who placed that revision need to loose their privileges of editing this article immediately! Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of stomping about in "outrage" and demanding severe retribution against the person who dared to alter this free-content encyclopedia, perhaps you should calm down and look for the change in the article's edit history, then explain what in this revision constitutes vandalism, contradicts the provided sources, or otherwise violates policy. I personally don't see outstanding vandalism or anything else wrong with it as it stands. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That person has been doing whatever to hex it wants in here for years and years while at the same time literary hundreds of fine editors were forced to take their indefinite leave in the same easily identifiable pattern and in front of the eyes of the whole community! And you find it appropriate to write about free-content encyclopedia? I'm extremely annoyed; I'll ban myself for at least a month! Tachyonbursts (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With that attitude, perhaps you should take off longer than a month... --Tarage (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Section
Article states:

The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.

This statement is outdated and it should be removed, or another, more contemporary statement should be made which is in direct contradiction with the current one. Please share your thoughts. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ae911 isn't a reliable source. Please take a look at WP:RS, thanks. RxS (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've took a look, you'll need to pinpoint the reasoning behind your claim, because I don't see one. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, why would you dismiss this reference? It states nothing, while it shows that our current construction is as outdated and as misleading as it ever was. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that if it is misleading, you'd need to show reliable sources to back that claim up, ae911 isn't a reliable source. That is, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As someone wanting to make a change, the burden of proof is on you to justify it. So for example, are they all really architects and engineers, do their numbers form significant part of the community of engineers, is the petition text relevant to what you want changed etc...RxS (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I commend you on doing a lot of dammage to your cause. Hopefully though, the majority of editors will ignore your hate filled rant and continue to treat each side with respect. --Tarage (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed this personal attack. Please don't encourage this kind of behavior by giving it attention. --Haemo (talk)
 * I've removed this personal attack. Please don't encourage this kind of behavior by giving it attention. --Haemo (talk)

9/11 by 9/11
All right, let's stay focused. What else do we need? Citations look very good. Are we ready for a nom or peer review? I would like this article to the on the Main Page (that is, FA) by 9/11/08. I don't think that goal is impossible to achieve, but I need more input and action. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

VegitaU is inserting POV and he's acting against consensus
VegitaU, please get in here and explain your actions, revision you've just removed was reached through consensus, so please justify your actions before I report your disregard for our policies and Arbcom decisions. We will not waste our time on this once more. Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For someone who just got blocked for legal threats, you don't seem to learn your lessons easy. Don't worry. I assure you I'm ready for an argument if you wish to report me. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Be kind, focus, quit with the unrelated gibberish and explain your actions. The revision you've just removed was reached through consensus. Would you like this stated in another language? Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of cooling this down, why don't you both settle down. The changes by VegitaU seem reasonable and don't make any assertions that aren't sufficiently backed up. While alluding to other "alternative" (read "insane") theories, they aren't outright in error in any respect. That said, this whole section is the result of a long, drawn-out consensus. I recommend against further changes of this nature unless you can prove consensus has changed. While Tachyonburst's (BTW, love the Star Trek reference there) comments could have been better tempered, the basic question still remains and should be answered: why should this be changed. I ask you to refrain from alluding to his past. He was reprimanded and "served his time". Unless the actions for which he was blocked are continuing to occur (which I do not believe they are), this has no bearing on the matter at hand.

In short, "Oh, behave! and follow the golden rule. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasonable? No. But yes, yes we've been here before, one step forward, two steps back will lead us to the womb, it will. VegitaU just reinstated the fire and debris ****, while there is nothing to back that one up. It doesn’t flow, it has a flaw, we're dealing with the subject of the ongoing investigation, and that is a rock solid fact. That's what reference says, that's what we've all agreed on before Aude came along to keep as from coming along. There is nothing wrong with stating things as they are. By doing that we're doing what we're here for. VegitaU, you could have just reinstated the reference, yes? Uf! Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, Tachyonbursts appears to simply be looking for a fight. The two times he has started a new section in the discussion, he has made extravigant claims that one of our editors has done some unspeakable crime. The best/worst part is, while making these accusations, he brings no evidence at all. Only threats. I have to seriously question the validity of any statement coming from this individual, and sugest that perhaps, this is an elaborate attempt at trolling. I am trying to assume good faith here, but with legal threats flying around at the drop of a hat, I am having dificulty. --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that one editor feels justified because their preferred version has more sources, and the other editor, because theirs is (or was) the consensus version. I think a compromise could probably be reached by any editor willing to merge the two versions. Therefore, that's what I'm going to try. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care what revision is the so-called "consensus version". I'm in this because his last edit, which was a copy of one done a few days ago, deleted a cited reference. And BTW, Steel, you screwed up the "compromise" edit. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know my change isn't particularly clever, but hopefully it will encourage editors to do more than just revert one another. If you have a problem with it, I'd appreciate a discussion rather than a revert. Actually, you don't even need to discuss it - just tell me what I did wrong and I'll fix it. Sound reasonable? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have fixed, but I have no idea what you're trying to do. You ended up copying an entire paragraph over (with tiny details changed). "Three buildings in the World Trade..." and onwards with the same sources. The sources have to say one thing or the other. Not both. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited it back. I'm sorry SheffieldSteel, but simply jamming in both versons a comprimise does not make. If anything, we should leave it the way it currently is, and discuss the changes here before we make them on the article. I am not endorsing either verson, but changes like this need to be talked about first. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article gives an overview of the events on 9/11. Looking at the broad picture (aside from the conspiracy theory discussions), WTC7 was more of a footnote in the days events, no one was killed or injured when the building collapsed, etc. A lengthy discussion about the particulars of the WTC7 collapse does not belong in that part of the article. It could go elsewhere, but not there. As mentioned above, it would be nice to get this to be a good article. I think the edits take us away from there, by making the discussion in that section of the article imbalanced. --Aude (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with VegitaU that people can change the article and with SS's assertion that people shouldn't just revert one another. Make one reversion (max) then discuss it on the talk page...this would stop a lot of edit wars...including ones I've started... — BQZip01 —  talk 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I try to adhear to this concept as much as possible, even when other's don't. I've used my one edit to say 'Lets hold off on changes till we talk about them here'. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I swear, I was just about to nominate it when I checked my watchlist and saw his edit. The rest is history. And so much for nominating it now; admin'll just say it's unstable and reject it. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We still have time. Lets all cool our heads and talk this one out. I don't forsee such a minor issue dragging on for months. Then again... --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c x 3)I attempted to remove the objections of both parties by creating a version containing both the former consensus text and the new ref. Aude's point about GA is a good one. I think deleting the mini-paragraph about the investigation would be a good step towards making this section more concise. But please don't complain to me about article instability. I haven't reverted this article other than to combat obvious vandalism. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not unstable; it is collapsing as we type. Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite a defeatest attitude. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Why not calmly talk about your proposed edit rather than stand on the street corner preaching of the end of the world(this article)? --Tarage (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooooh,this is just lovely. Do say, if someone would promise you antigrav if we would simply get rid of the law, wouldn’t you smack him on the face and warn him what it all means, tell him as decently as you can, hey fellow, do not break the damn law because you'll venture away from the Sun and bring the demise of us all?! Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think you need to calm down. This level of anger and sarcasm is not healthy, much less helpful. As I said, I am unsure as to which verson I wish to endorse, and you could go a long way towards your goal by simply explaining it to me, and any other fence sitters, instead of using this kind of rhetoric. --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree with Tarage more. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarage, I'm quite calm, if you take a look at our mutual history here, you'll see what's wrong. With or without pop references and illustrations, no, we're not here to omit anything and/or anyone. Let's just say it as it is, and the very best thing we can do at this time is to state that we're in the middle of the ongoing investigation. I'm not sure how to reiterate such clear fact? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actions speak louder that words, and your actions show someone who is anything but calm. But, if you say you are, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. In reguards to the edit you are proposing, it may seem quite cut and dry to you, but without 'pop refrences and illustrations', it is moot. It is these 'pop refrences and illustrations' that allow us to see the world through your eyes, to the best of our ability. It is these 'pop refrences and illustrations' that form the backbone of Wikipedia itself. We have a kinder name for them, Reliable Sources. Does that help? --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Indent)

I always liked Silver Surfer…

Allbright, let's put it this way, few days ago we've learned that administration(s) engaged in massive propaganda campaign, in days to come we'll learn more. Such is the course of history, the history we're here to recognize and inscribe. I'm mentioning this to show how unreliable reliable source can be and that is a rock solid fact. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By continuing to ignore what I have to say, you are not helping your cause at all. I give up. If you want to edit like a grown up, instead of using persional attacks and sarcasm, then I'll listen. Until then, you appear to be doing nothing but trolling. Good day. --Tarage (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In how many ways should one act? We have a reference; reference that speaks about various working hypotheses which are a subject of ongoing investigation. It is as simple as that. I don't understand your need to state it in some different way, or to postulate something out of nothing. Why don't you try and explain why to hex would/should we do such thing? Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tach, I agree with your insertion, but the way you are going about it is not building consensus and is only irking people. Please cease. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, my sincerest apologies, if I may I'd suggest we all restrain from calling each other trolls and similes, with such course it would be much easier to keep mutual civility. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The same applies to sugesting that there is some sort of propaganda war on the part of our fellow editors. --Tarage (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit. If you wish any of to take it seriously, please do what I asked and provide refrences. This is not consensus. --Tarage (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: On second thought, I'll take back my edit. As I am still on the fence on this issue, it is not my place to question it. Also, I don't intend to break the 'one edit per editor' rule. However, I highly recomend that Tachyonbursts come and explain this edit with RS. If not, there is no reason to keep it. --Tarage (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RS, per request>, ,
 * Please refer to previous discussion to see how consensus was formed. Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See? All you had to do was add your paragraph with your sources. Way to go. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The hijackers - request for citation
The following sentence is not referenced, sourced or cited. Why is that?

Nineteen men boarded the four planes, five each on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 77, four on United Airlines Flight 93.

Can anyone provide a citation for that sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyonbursts (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is provided at the end of the next sentence (footnote 95). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen that and I'm not even sure if that would be a reliable source per se. That said, I was referring to the first sentence and a citation, source, reference which will place those Arabs aboard those planes. Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortionatly, you don't get to decide of a source is reliable or not. We have guidelines for that. Unless you can, perhaps, point out how that source fails those guidelines? --Tarage (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say you should place the tag back where it was until we find the reference. Would you be so kind? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this sentence is indeed sourced from a reliable source. Every sentence doesn't need a footnote and it is perfectly acceptable in every guide I've ever seen (MLA, WP:MoS, etc) to cite something at the end of a paragraph or group of sentences if the reference applies to all the previous sentences. Your request is, therefore, moot and your continued contentious discussion with a clear agenda is wearing thin. Unless you have something constructive to add or discuss, please cease. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My one and only 'agenda' is to bring NPOV to this deeply biased article. Most of the editors are well capable of understanding the point of the dispute behind our discussions. I'm not sure if there is a need to explain the obvious, but each and every accusation you are making on my account can be turned, swayed and pointed straight back in your direction! I'd suggest you seize with conduct that you find inappropriate from my side, but which appears to be acceptable when it comes from the group of well know editors (with clear agenda!). Please, try to address the issue at stake, and do not force me to speak of omissions and cover-up and circus, because it will do us no good. Each action causes re-action, if you push me I'll pull you, and if you expect to see me turning the other cheek each time one of the POV inserters decides to throw libel and slender in my direction than you're expecting way too much. Hope this clears the horizon for a bit.


 * Now, I'm well aware of the issue behind my request, I'm not going into details or background which most of us find disturbing. We are dealing with sensitive article; we cannot allow our selves to have any doubts here. So, I'll stick to my request, the current reference has nothing to do with Arabs aboard those airplanes, further more, works of fiction should not be referenced here at all. This should be the simplest of request, there should be plenty of citations for the sentence, find one and place it where it is appropriate. As some of the editors here like to state, the burden of providing the evidence is on you. Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you can use the Wikipedian guidelines for Reliable Sources to cite why a source is a work of fiction, please do not make claims such as this. Backing up an argument with evidence is one thing, blindly making accusations is another. One is welcome here, the other is not. I appreciate what you did with the WTC 7 issue when you cited sources. Please do so here, so we don't have yet another needless argument. --Tarage (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarage I don't see how Mcdermott's book places those Arabs aboard those planes, did he provide a reference (such as passenger list, or flight manifest) which would show that those alleged perpetrators boarded flights? He did not. Therefore his work, regardless what we think of it, cannot stand as citation for that first sentence. We'll simply need to find one, is that a problem? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's up Ice Cold? Have you found a citation? This is a second time you're reverting without valid explanation, how many strikes before you're out? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a bunch of sources identifying the hijackers etc., , , , , , ,  RxS (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but at the moment, we're not really interested in identity of the hijackers; we're interested to see them aboard those planes. Can it be that we don't have a single reference which will place those Arabs on those flights? Tachyonbursts (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow, identifying them as the hijackers of the planes by definition puts them on the planes. We're not here to investigate as primary sources. RxS (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent)

We'll deal with the possible identities a bit later, we can do it now if you insist, but I'd prefer if we would take it one step at the time. I'm fine either way, what will it be? Would you prefer if we would start to question the identity of the hijackers now or a bit later? Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So much for that headache. Let's get back to constructive editing. GA anyone? -- VegitaU (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not the best choice of words. Either way, it is probably for the best, as I feel we were approaching a circular argument, one that I'm sure has already taken place in the archives. In reguards to GA, I can't do much, but if there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Arbitration seems to have slowly aleviated some of the issues we have had preventing us from achieving GA. --Tarage (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, if no one objects, I'll nominate it within 24 hours. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG. I can't believe it
This 9/11 article on Wikipedia is just wrong, in the begenning of this whole article about 9/11 you should say, "According to the official theory." This is just wrong to say (" ... were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.)How do we know that ? just because FBI told us doesn't mean it's true.(They think that's what happened but they don't know for sure; that is what theory is.).This is wrong, because nobody knows what( or should I say who) caused 9/11. The official theory is just another "theory" it doesn't necessary mean that this what EXACTLY happened on September 11,2001, see what I mean ?
 * Please see Undue weight. What is presented in this article is the opinion of the vast majority of reliable sources. Hut 8.5 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please read the archives. I am almost positive every argument you make here has already been argued to death in past debates. --Tarage (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to delete (or immediately archive) these discussions when they pop up? Or do we have to answer each one? -- VegitaU (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh... I don't know. Usually I leave both options for admins and just try to point people in the right direction... which almost always is the archives. --Tarage (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just do it. There's a big bold note at the top saying to look in the archives.  If people don't bother, then too bad for them.  Promptly archiving redundant discussions is part of the evolution solution to issues like this; however, if a subject replaces it, then in the interests of keeping things cool, don't remove it again. --Haemo (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Books
Why is this section needed at all. It seems like it would cause more problems than help readers. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. That section seems like a problem waiting to happen. I sugested it's removal back when we were arguing if a book should be added or not. The problem is any book added is most likely going to have POV one way or the other. Really, the only book that probably has any right to be there is the NIST Report, since it is refrenced so many times, and doesn't feel like it pushes anything more than official findings. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. It does not have a well-defined purpose, and there isn't an "authoritative" reading list on the subject yet.  Currently, it's a silly grab-bag of books that have something to do with 9/11 by someone notable or maybe notable.  Not useful to readers, not encyclopedic. --Haemo (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's there because some editors wanted Chomsky's book to be linked from this page. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been removed with a note. --Haemo (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly and FBI statements
I read through the previous discussion of "allegedly" and there are some problems with it. First,"Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Certainly this is evidence of doubt.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Why is this not mentioned?

As for his confession, from Wikipedia, "In some cases, people have falsely confessed to having committed notorious crimes simply for the attention that they receive from such a confession." on the False confession page.

Jimmywfl (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywfl (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what "Team Liberty" is or where they get their info, but the FBI itself states evidence linking bin Laden and 9/11 is clear and irrefutable. And you can't dismiss mutiple video confessions as "false" without some serious citations. I consider this matter closed. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The FBI's page on bin Laden http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
 * does not mention the WTC attack at all. "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
 * As for the confessions, bin Laden did not walk into a police station, get fingerprinted, and then confess. To assume that a video tape from dubious sources is the absolute truth is quite an asumption. I did not say it was false; I said there is no evidence to prove that it is not false. Repeatedly confessing does not make something true. Bin Laden's movement has benefited greatly from the presumption that he did it - so confessing to it had a definite profit for him, whether he did or did not.

Jimmywfl (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article
I think we are close. Here are some issues: There are other issues, but I think if these things are addressed, that would address the most glaring things. --Aude (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The attacks" section still bothers me, with the "investigations" paragraph. I suggest reading the section aloud and see how it sounds, to see if the paragraph is out of place to you?  If I understand correctly, this section is meant to be a quick summary of the day's events.  Per summary style, we then link to a more detailed timeline page.  Later in the article, we do talk about the collapse investigations.  I would put those details in that section and not the timeline/day of attacks section.   Of course, if everyone disagrees with me, then okay.
 * The "economic effects" section is subpar, with parts of it completely unreferenced.
 * The prose in the "international reactions" section is choppy. "The attacks had major global political ramifications." doesn't seem well written to me. For the line, "and froze the bank accounts[150] of businesses", the reference can go at the end of the sentence, rather than in the middle.  Overall, the section sounds like a bunch of disparate thoughts all added by different people and it doesn't flow together as good prose.
 * I personally feel that the investigations do not need to be covered in the Attacks section. My preferred form of words says that WTC7 was hit by debris, fires were reported, and it collapsed later in the day. Some editors (and various conspiracy theorists) have argued that the cause of collapse is unknown and might be controlled demolition - after all, the investigation is still ongoing, so nobody knows for sure. This is an area where two opposing viewpoints are apparently each unwilling to let the other side imply anything about the collapse - that it is perfectly simple, or that it is mysterious, or a cover-up. Hence, too many words are present, rather than too few. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

Issues Summary
I'm going to summarize for clarity then.

Attacks and Investigations

 * Lengthy accounts. Sections need to be summarized appropriately on this article with proper links directing the reader to subarticles. It would be a shame to lose any of this information we've worked hard on. Please be careful in moving large sections so that references aren't cut off on either end. A missing tag is a good way to ruin an article.
 * All right, I've removed the individual flights. I found that to be the most awkward area of the section. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody please cross-check my work. I've run through the "Attacks" and "Attackers and motive" sections and I need someone to go through and make sure it makes sense. I've cut a lot out that was either unreferenced, dead linked, redundant, or already mentioned on subarticles. Please review my edits. Thanks, and we're doing a great job. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As for WTC7, everything depends on the choice of words. "WTC 7 collapsed later in the day. Ongoing investigations by NIST hypothesize that fires caused by falling debris compromised the building's integrity and caused its collapse." Something along those lines.

Economic aftermath

 * I'm not sure about being subpar. A lot of information seems factual, rather than opinionated, but needs references.
 * Reasons why I think the section was a problem include the "rebuilding" information, which seemed out of place. As such, I have moved it.  I am also not sure the section is a "comprehensive".  It mentions somethings with maybe a tad too much detail, while it omits other points (e.g. effects on the insurance industry).  I'm working on the subarticle to make sure it covers all important points, then can come back to this section here with references and try to make it a more balanced summary. --Aude (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is in serious need of citations and reworking. We might, in fact, cut major portions that we can't cite out of it. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

International reactions

 * May want to get rid of the first sentence and add the link to the top with a template. Otherwise, it didn't look particularly choppy to me. Either way, if anyone believes they can improve it, do it. Above all, remember the references. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Images
I removed two of the "smoke plume" images, as I don't think we needed three in the article. The images removed include: Image:New York September 11 NEXRAD.png and Image:SmokePlumePentagon911.png. This makes room if we want to add something else, instead. --Aude (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworked a few, replacing the overwhelming amount of structural damage photos we had with more memorable ones. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We also need to move some images around, and remove some others. Yes, it's nice that we have lots of free images &mdash; but we don't really need all of them in the article.  One per section is probably good, and it should fit the content.  (For example, the one in "Motives" seems out of place). --Haemo (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one is the 9/11 Commission report cover. Useful?  Informative?  I'm not really sure. --Haemo (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it up. You're right, it wasn't very interesting. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lead
I think the lead needs work too in order to summarize the entire article, not just the attacks and casualties. Also, I think there's too much detail there. For example, I can't really find any mention of the specific flights in the body (after I deleted them, I know), but they are in the lead. I don't want a bulleted list with super-detailed information like we had, but a more generalized, quick run through of what happened. "Flights 11 and 175 crashed..., Flight 75 crashed..., and Flight 93 crashed..." Shouldn't be longer than a few sentences and we can get rid of those specifics in the lead - just say "two flight...into WTC, one into Pentagon, the fourth at Shanksville after a revolt."

Let me know what you think or change this as you see fit. It's only my opinion after all. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is starting to shape up nicely. I think if you put the flights into the text "Two aircraft, Flight 11 out of... and Flight 175 out of... " it would cover it.  Right now it just says "two aircraft, both 767s" which seems to be too little info and then later flight 93 is mentioned in the text.  --PTR (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I reworked the lead and first section, but I think it still needs tweaking to really get up to standards. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The final sentence of the lead, "Progress has seen a lack of agreement as well as criticism over the planned Freedom Tower," seems a bit awkward to me. Is there a better way to phrase this sentence? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "Progress on the planned Freedom Tower has been slowed due to lack of agreement as well as criticism." --Tarage (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the current wording. I think it's pretty good. --Haemo (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed that the hijackers had some pilot training as not lead material but I still think the lead seems choppy and "hijackers" is repeated too many times. I suggest the following:


 * On that morning, terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City and a third airliner into the Pentagon. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania after passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft attempted to retake control of their plane.[5]  WTC1 and WTC2 were directly impacted and collapsed soon afterward; other nearby buildings were extensively damaged.[4]


 * --PTR (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Length
I know you've covered this before, but I want to still make sure what your opinions are on the article length. I've been trimming the unnecessary details the last few days. I was hoping I could get it under 100K, but I didn't quite make it. How does everyone feel about the article length? -- VegitaU (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some ridiculous amount of the length is the references. If you trim them all out, the size is only 83kb, which is well within size guidelines, especially for such an important topic. --Haemo (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. We do have a lot of those. I'm going to archive this in a few hours if no one has anything else to say. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Give it at least 24 hours. One issue with this being an international project is that not everyone works at the same time. --Haemo (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and it's the weekend :) Aude2 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I just didn't want to start cluttering the talk page with small things. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!
You guys are doing some great work! Tom Harrison Talk 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to see you here. The working environment on this article has indeed improved a lot.  It's great to be discussing actual improvements to the article. --Aude (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to thank you guys for the great work. The last 3 or 4 months (or more) of battle on these pages really took the enthusiasm out of editing here for me, it's good to see people pushing forward with such good work. RxS (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ready to nominate for GA
I haven't a chance to look in detail at the latest edits from over the weekend, but from a quick skim through the article, it looks good. I think it's ready to be nominated at WP:GA. The reviewer may provide more suggestions or ask for certain fixes, but I don't see any major flaw that stands in the way. Good work everyone! --Aude (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ready for nom I'm happy with what's been done. I think it's ready to go. Though I have a sneaking fear someone will suddenly edit-war right before we try. (9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB FUR TEH JUSTIZ!!11) -- VegitaU (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Vandalism and bad faith edits are disregarded in the good article criteria. Go ahead and nom. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing I normally do when I submit nominations is to take time and review some other articles listed on the page. I realize there is often a backlog on the nominations page, so it helps to pitch in.  I may not have the time, but might do one. --Aude (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. By this evening then; if no one has any objections. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's done. There's a major-freakin backlog so it'll probably take a month or so. Stay sharp&mdash;it's possible they will put the status on hold with a list of things to improve. Please fix these things as soon as you see them! Also, we have more power after the arbcom decision. Please give people who violate this decision with the template below (it's an example, so change it to suit the situation): -

- Anyway, be patient, stay sharp, and hopefully our hard work will pay off! Thanks everyone, you've done a great job! -- VegitaU (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't use an actual example when you post things like that VegitaU. I was confused enough by it to make a comment on an editor's page that was false. --Tarage (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I mentioned it was an example. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary links
Looking through the article, I realized that it contains a number of unnecessary links, especially in the first few sections.

In my view, links are only necessary to provide explanations
 * on relatively unknown things or concepts that are relevant to the understanding of the content
 * on things or concepts that are likely to be of interest to the reader
 * on terms that have a particular meaning within the context

Applying these criteria, the following links could be deleted, in order to increase the readability of the text (in the order of occurrence):


 * suicide attacks
 * United States
 * hijacked
 * jet airliners
 * New York City
 * Washington, D.C.
 * civilians
 * stock exchanges
 * 2036
 * aircraft pilots
 * flight attendants
 * local time
 * Canada
 * Mexico
 * Germany
 * Spain
 * illegal immigrant
 * Blood donations
 * New York City mayor
 * e-mail
 * mainstream media
 * civil rights
 * export
 * small businesses
 * tax base
 * air travel
 * air space
 * fireproofing
 * emergency escape
 * Democratic Party
 * Republican Party
 * office tower

In addition, the following links should be changed:


 * the Pentagon -> the Pentagon (2 times)
 * White House -> the White House
 * Spanish high court -> National Court of Spain
 * Spanish Supreme Court -> Supreme Court of Spain

In one sentence ("including that several hijackers were aboard each plane"), the term "hijackers" is used in a generic sense, and the link pointing to the specific hijackers of 9/11 should be deleted.

Last but not least, the article Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations might be renamed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link conspiracy theories, and the link to that article could then point to the new lemma ;-) --Cs32en (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about overlinking. No opinion about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations, except to note that article is overlinked too. Tom Harrison Talk 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd love to create a Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link conspiracy theories article, but I doubt we would have many reliable sources that specifically call the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11 a "conspiracy theory". I looked it up myself a couple weeks ago and didn't find much so I abandoned the effort. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)