Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 54

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks &mdash; It doesn't make any sense not to specify the year. Even if many people refer to it as just "September 11", it isn't specific enough. To someone who hasn't heard of the event, calling it the "September 11 attacks" makes it sound like an annual event. Compare 7 July 2005 London bombings. If the event doesn't have an actual name, then we need to give it a descriptive encyclopaedic name.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or to 11 September 2001 attacks? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is a U.S. event, the U.S. date conventions need to be used in the title. In this regard "September 11, 2001 attacks" is preferable to "11 September 2001 attacks". Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the attacks ever refered to as such? It's common in the UK to say "September 11" in relation to this event, even though that is contrary to UK date conventions. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is common to refer to this event as simply 9/11. If there is to be a move, this would be my prefered choice per WP:COMMONNAME. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's the best title in my opinion because the attacks were so massive unless there are another set of equally large attacks on a September 11, then there's no need to move the page.
 * The London bombings were on a much, much, smaller scale.
 * It doesn't make any sense to specify the year, the date will be forever remembered as September 11, and is beyond commonplace when referring to the most devastating terrorist attacks in history.
 * Everyone has heard of September 11, for those that haven't will realise what it is by clicking on the article, and will understand why it's kind of bad-mannered or blunt to stick a 2001 in the title.
 * John Cengiz  talk  22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the current name is fine; the purpose of a page title is to describe the subject using a common and encyclopedic term. 9/11 is not suitable either as it is a nickname rather than an encyclopedic name. The title does not need to inform you of the exact date, you can look in the article for that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Didn't we have this debate a while ago? I thought that had all the arguments we would ever need on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The date "September 11" is closely associated with these attacks; see this, for example. The year is unnecessary. Ucucha 23:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as pointless shuffling. If the title needs changing in the future because of other attacks on the same day, that can happen.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment I would oppose any move to 9/11. It's unencyclopaedic and parochial. (fine as a redirect, of course).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for similar reasons as VsevolodKrolikov above. This is a solution in search of a problem. If there is a move, 9/11 is a better title, what with it being in actual use. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per VsevolodKrolikov. Status quo is fine. --John (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - In as much as 9/11 was a publicity stunt to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to implement the Patriot Act, it deserves to be known by its brand name: 9/11. Oclupak (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite, please? Powers T 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Until a more significant event happens on September 11 I see no need to lengthen the name. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, who the heck "hasn't heard of the event"? (Among people who have heard of Wikipedia, that is.)  Powers T 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - totally oppose, according to a wikipedia policy i read earlier (I forgot which one, and I'm too lazy too look it up but WP:UCN will work too), it said to name articles by common name and keep them short, infact I would find 9/11 a better name to call it, much more common. --Poohunter (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from Develooper, 14 October 2010
I would like to change the Belligerents to "Unknown" because there is no true evidence that al-Qaeda did it. Not even FBI hold Usama bin Laden as a suspect to 9/11. Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI 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.”

Reference: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

Develooper (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide a citation for the quotation. Powers T 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed numerous times. Please consult the archives. If the matter has changed, present new information, sources and arguments. 79.204.37.211 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See above. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Smithdennis, 21 October 2010
My father Dennis Smith is the author of Report from Ground Zero which is about 9/11. Could someone please add this information to the 9/11 page.

Smithdennis (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tsbrewster, 22 October 2010
Common, if this site wants real credibility then it must show the facts about 9/11 otherwise the site and its owners at as evil as those who murdered over 1 million people. That's taking into account those killed because of the 9/11 inside job

Tsbrewster (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No thanks. This article isn't for conspiracy theorizing.  Please see what Wikipedia is not.  Antandrus  (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as above. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual Ommissions
The authors of this article seem rather aggressive towards the so called "conspiracy theories" even when legitamate, foreign media supports the idea. The 9/11 Truth Movement seems mainstream enough to warrent at least a paragraph in this article, due to relavance of the topics. This is especially true in light of the videos released recently via the freedom of information act. (Available Online @ http://www.faz.net/s/RubB08CD9E6B08746679EDCF370F87A4512/Doc~E42B92739BDBE45AA877FBE5A5D988202~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html)

The whole conspiracy theories chapter is more of a rant rather than a summary of the article 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which is itself almost just as big as the main September 11 attacks article. This warrents a re-write by somebody who has educated themselves on the subject.

Remember: if enough people believe elaphants to be immortal, it will become fact. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The conspiracy theorists have been shown to be false on numerous occasions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Only the ones you know of. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No Soxwon (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request for the following text,

"Conspiracy theorists question the official version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in independent investigations. Some of the conspiracy theories see the attacks as a casus belli through a false flag to bring about increased militarization and police power.

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

to be changed to:

"Some polls show that a growing number of Americans reject the official statements, either believing that President Bush or members of his administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen or engineered the attacks as a casus belli to justify a war of aggresion in Iraq and Afghanistan and create support for martial law.

Proponants of the conspiracy theory speculate that reports of secondary explosions by eye-witnesses at ground zero are consistant with archive video footage of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings One, Two, and Seven, depicting explosions and a collapse comparable to a controlled demolition. Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims, some individuals, such as members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have aquired forensic evidence which, they believe, prove the aircraft impacts were not a factor of the collapse. The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone."

The two sources from the previous text can be kept, along with the aforementioned link. There are many polls which can be used as a source for the first statement. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of Americans believe that they've been abducted by aliens. That merits a one-line mention in extra-terrestrial life, it doesn't make alien abduction a fact. You also might want to read the German of the Frankfurter Allgemeine link. It more or less reads "Here we go with another round of conspiracy theorists going off on one". (I do love this idea that the world is just one properly worded freedom of information act away from uncovering the trooth about the complicity of thousands and thousands of people, many of whom voluntarily helped to kill their friends and relatives. It's kind of sweet, in a macabre way. But it's not encyclopaedic.) There's a reason why, no matter how hard you try, you'll never convince people in the reality-based community that elephants are immortal. They die. OK? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, couldn't have summarized it better.--MONGO 04:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that the current version is too light for what that chapter links to. That text has no relavance at all. Cheers. 174.89.55.112 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point gives the issue undue weight, as was pointed out more eloquently above, and inserts things like "Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims...", itself a reflexive dismissal. Also, as I have pointed out many times in this context, "The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone" is factually incorrect - steel frame structures collapse due to fire on a daily basis. Part of a steel-framed mall in California collapsed last week in a fire that was not aggressively fought. The WTC buildings are the only tall steel structures to do so, part of a very small subset of steel structures, few of which have suffered such extensive fires.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Undue weight would only be an issue if the 9/11 conspiracy theories page was a stub of nonsense. Considering it nonsense automatically is rather biased, especially in a world where wars are typically started with false-flags. Cheers. 174.89.55.112 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay look, you clearly aren't a new editor. For whatever reason you have decided to stay an anonymous editor, which is usually fine. However, we have had quite a few single purpose accounts that for whatever reason try to push one view on the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. These people also tend to not get the hint, and create sockpuppets to continue the fight even after they are banned. Please note that in no way am I implying you are one of these people. I have no idea, and it would be inappropriate to judge so soon. However, it is something you need to be aware of before we go forward.


 * I need you to realize that while what you are presenting may sound sane and rational to you, it goes against what the established consensus is. This consensus has been formed after countless people trying to change it, and far more voting to keep it the same. The current article is not biased. The current article is fine. Adding more information about conspiracy theories would ad undue weight, even if you don't think it would. This is what the consensus says. If you have a problem with it, I'm sorry. It isn't going to change because one editor wills it to. There is a mountain of reliable sources standing against you, so if you are dead set on changing the established consensus, the first step is to present numerous reliable sources that back up your claim. Until then, please refraim from soapboxing on this issue. And please be aware of the discretionary actions that we are capable of taking against unruly editors because of an arbitration case. This is not a threat, I just want you to be aware of it. --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The first people involved in space research were arrested because what they discovered contradicted the established consensus at the time. Though I'm not trying to change consensus here in any way, I'm just bringing up the issue that this article leaves out many, many details simply because you all know that those conspiracy theories are true.


 * I really don't want to soapbox here over matters of opinion, but the small chapter about conspiracy theories should be a summary of the conspiracy theories article, not an opinion piece about conspiracy theorists. That small blurb of text was written with a bias - please do not tell me otherwise. Sure, my replacement text was biased too, but at least it was all factual. Cheers. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was founded partly by the guy that you (can see in this link via the video).......hope he isn't involved in the design/construction of anything important.--MONGO 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: Bilderberg Group - Your government keeps too many secrets anyways. They use the classification levels to hide criminal activity. Cheers. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.112.110.204, 29 October 2010
This Article is still under investigation and is not considered 100% accurate

70.112.110.204 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌; no specific request made. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) This is an empty request as you haven't asked for any specific edit to be made. If you do come back here with an actual request, it should provide a reliable source that verifies what you seek to add, it should be set forth in neutral language, and it should be something that is appropriate with due regard to weight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories:

Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories.

174.89.58.40 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WLRoss' edits to the Conspiracy theories section
In this edit, User:WLRoss appears to imply that National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers issued their 9/11 findings without conducting research; the de-facto effect of such an edit is to de-value their conclusions. The edit summary used by User:WLRoss claims prior consensus for his position - this looks rather strange and even nonsensical to me, but I'd like to discuss the issue here before reverting. Nsk92 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording "after their research" may be somewhat confusing. In particular, it may be interpreted to mean that NIST did research outside of the official investigation. We could perhaps write: "whose investigations concluded". Did ASCE do research on 9/11 as an institution, or did ASCE researchers write articles based on their individual research? Cs32en   Talk to me  21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both NIST and ASCE reports were official institutional reports. The NIST report says so directly in its title. The ASCE findings were reported in the congressional testimony of Gene Corley which is marked at the title page as "On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers". WLRoss writes in his edit summary "deleted text that carried the implication that CD was researched" which conveys the implication that their findings were not researched and were sort of just pulled out of the thin air - which is certainly not the case. I think a wording like "whose research concluded" would be fine. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
As it states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk."...discussion NOT related to improving the article will be archived, refactored and or deleted...the article will NEVER go into any great detail regarding conspiracy theories so get used to that fact. Continued disruption of this page by those here to promote conspiracy theories can and will lead to possible sanctions including topic bans as detailed at the Discretionary sanctions section of the 2008 Arbitration Case.--MONGO 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing, including numbers of victims
This article has some sourcing issues, as I mentioned above before it got rather prematurely archived. Some of it isn't up to scratch (citing minor or college newspapers, or suspect ones (Fox, Judicial Watch), and some have simply been superseded by better sources, such as university imprints. I've noticed that there are several different figures cited for the numbers of victims. We have "almost 3,000" (Fox), 2996 (the Online Rocket, a minor college newspaper), and a slightly dodgy calculation (methodologically) made from various CNN figures to get 2753. There's also a 2752 unsourced for the total dead at the WTC alone (CNN had it at 2606). The info box has "approximately 3000". This has to be sorted out. Is there no official estimate available? In addition, I do not think MONGO's insistence that the UNSC statement should be linked to the lede statement about the attacks is valid. It was one day after the attacks. The books cited use the word terrorist, and if there really is controversy over the word terrorist (lunatics aside) then there should be a section on it. It's simply not a good source. It's just as bad as truthers using confused news reports in the days afterwards as evidence for anything. We have clearer, more reliable sources later after the events. The UNSC is a good source for what the UNSC thought, but not much else.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing from reliable news sources depends on the date of issuance...the most recent news reports will likely provide the most up to date numbers...books not readily available to those not able to access them via a library aren't always as good for sourcing as a clickable URL for this web based platform encyclopedia...so perhaps both a printed book source and a web source for is best. There is no exact known dead...ABC News as of 2005 put the number at 2,749 at the WTC counting those on the two planes ...when you combine that with the 184 at the Pentagon counting the plane that hit it and the 40 on flight 93 ...that totals near to 3,000 and some sources do not list the 19 hijackers while others do....bear in mind that due to the unknowns (possibly illegal alien workers in the WTC) we may never have a exact number.--MONGO 05:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition...we're surely not going to create a "section" in the article discussing the use of the term terrorist...look at the top of this page under the FAQ's and see why we're not going to do that.--MONGO 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no - I wasn't actually suggesting creating a section on the use of the term terrorist. I was being a little sarcastic - my apologies if that didn't come across. I just don't think we need to worry about whether or not we attach the UNSC's description in the lede like that. Where it was, it looked like a source for the fact the attacks were AQ etc etc, and it isn't such a source. As for the numbers - the problem is, it's OR to add numbers together like that because they come from different sources, and different times, possibly using different methods. (It's not like adding up figures in a table produced by one source using consistent methodology, which isn't OR). If there are no exact numbers, then I suggest that we be more explicit about that, and give a few of the proper RS estimates as an example of the degree of uncertainty (i.e. not much) as well as the rough number. There is a page (Casualties of the September 11 attacks) to which people can be directed.
 * I've tracked down what we can take as an authoritative official source for total WTC deaths - the New York Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. (I should have thought of going there before, really). They put out this, which details total recognised deaths. I suggest we use this where possible. The Pentagon death numbers seem stable, as do the other airplanes. I'll re-do the sourcing when I have the time to concentrate, as it'll be fiddly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing REALLY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. I just copy and pasted the numbers from this page to the "casaulties of 9/11" page because it had the deaths above 3,000 even though it sourced the same sources. The Rocket article really needs to be replaced by a more reliable source. Or simply add the sources for the pentagon, WTC, and UA 93 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleveland84 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Develooper, 14 October 2010
I would like to change the Belligerents to "Unknown" because there is no true evidence that al-Qaeda did it. Not even FBI hold Usama bin Laden as a suspect to 9/11. Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI 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.”

Reference: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

Develooper (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide a citation for the quotation. Powers T 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed numerous times. Please consult the archives. If the matter has changed, present new information, sources and arguments. 79.204.37.211 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See above. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Smithdennis, 21 October 2010
My father Dennis Smith is the author of Report from Ground Zero which is about 9/11. Could someone please add this information to the 9/11 page.

Smithdennis (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tsbrewster, 22 October 2010
Common, if this site wants real credibility then it must show the facts about 9/11 otherwise the site and its owners at as evil as those who murdered over 1 million people. That's taking into account those killed because of the 9/11 inside job

Tsbrewster (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No thanks. This article isn't for conspiracy theorizing.  Please see what Wikipedia is not.  Antandrus  (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as above. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks &mdash; It doesn't make any sense not to specify the year. Even if many people refer to it as just "September 11", it isn't specific enough. To someone who hasn't heard of the event, calling it the "September 11 attacks" makes it sound like an annual event. Compare 7 July 2005 London bombings. If the event doesn't have an actual name, then we need to give it a descriptive encyclopaedic name.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or to 11 September 2001 attacks? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is a U.S. event, the U.S. date conventions need to be used in the title. In this regard "September 11, 2001 attacks" is preferable to "11 September 2001 attacks". Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the attacks ever refered to as such? It's common in the UK to say "September 11" in relation to this event, even though that is contrary to UK date conventions. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is common to refer to this event as simply 9/11. If there is to be a move, this would be my prefered choice per WP:COMMONNAME. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's the best title in my opinion because the attacks were so massive unless there are another set of equally large attacks on a September 11, then there's no need to move the page.
 * The London bombings were on a much, much, smaller scale.
 * It doesn't make any sense to specify the year, the date will be forever remembered as September 11, and is beyond commonplace when referring to the most devastating terrorist attacks in history.
 * Everyone has heard of September 11, for those that haven't will realise what it is by clicking on the article, and will understand why it's kind of bad-mannered or blunt to stick a 2001 in the title.
 * John Cengiz  talk  22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the current name is fine; the purpose of a page title is to describe the subject using a common and encyclopedic term. 9/11 is not suitable either as it is a nickname rather than an encyclopedic name. The title does not need to inform you of the exact date, you can look in the article for that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Didn't we have this debate a while ago? I thought that had all the arguments we would ever need on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The date "September 11" is closely associated with these attacks; see this, for example. The year is unnecessary. Ucucha 23:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as pointless shuffling. If the title needs changing in the future because of other attacks on the same day, that can happen.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment I would oppose any move to 9/11. It's unencyclopaedic and parochial. (fine as a redirect, of course).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for similar reasons as VsevolodKrolikov above. This is a solution in search of a problem. If there is a move, 9/11 is a better title, what with it being in actual use. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per VsevolodKrolikov. Status quo is fine. --John (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - In as much as 9/11 was a publicity stunt to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to implement the Patriot Act, it deserves to be known by its brand name: 9/11. Oclupak (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite, please? Powers T 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Until a more significant event happens on September 11 I see no need to lengthen the name. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, who the heck "hasn't heard of the event"? (Among people who have heard of Wikipedia, that is.)  Powers T 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - totally oppose, according to a wikipedia policy i read earlier (I forgot which one, and I'm too lazy too look it up but WP:UCN will work too), it said to name articles by common name and keep them short, infact I would find 9/11 a better name to call it, much more common. --Poohunter (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Factual Ommissions
The authors of this article seem rather aggressive towards the so called "conspiracy theories" even when legitamate, foreign media supports the idea. The 9/11 Truth Movement seems mainstream enough to warrent at least a paragraph in this article, due to relavance of the topics. This is especially true in light of the videos released recently via the freedom of information act. (Available Online @ http://www.faz.net/s/RubB08CD9E6B08746679EDCF370F87A4512/Doc~E42B92739BDBE45AA877FBE5A5D988202~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html)

The whole conspiracy theories chapter is more of a rant rather than a summary of the article 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which is itself almost just as big as the main September 11 attacks article. This warrents a re-write by somebody who has educated themselves on the subject.

Remember: if enough people believe elaphants to be immortal, it will become fact. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The conspiracy theorists have been shown to be false on numerous occasions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Only the ones you know of. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No Soxwon (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request for the following text,

"Conspiracy theorists question the official version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in independent investigations. Some of the conspiracy theories see the attacks as a casus belli through a false flag to bring about increased militarization and police power.

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

to be changed to:

"Some polls show that a growing number of Americans reject the official statements, either believing that President Bush or members of his administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen or engineered the attacks as a casus belli to justify a war of aggresion in Iraq and Afghanistan and create support for martial law.

Proponants of the conspiracy theory speculate that reports of secondary explosions by eye-witnesses at ground zero are consistant with archive video footage of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings One, Two, and Seven, depicting explosions and a collapse comparable to a controlled demolition. Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims, some individuals, such as members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have aquired forensic evidence which, they believe, prove the aircraft impacts were not a factor of the collapse. The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone."

The two sources from the previous text can be kept, along with the aforementioned link. There are many polls which can be used as a source for the first statement. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of Americans believe that they've been abducted by aliens. That merits a one-line mention in extra-terrestrial life, it doesn't make alien abduction a fact. You also might want to read the German of the Frankfurter Allgemeine link. It more or less reads "Here we go with another round of conspiracy theorists going off on one". (I do love this idea that the world is just one properly worded freedom of information act away from uncovering the trooth about the complicity of thousands and thousands of people, many of whom voluntarily helped to kill their friends and relatives. It's kind of sweet, in a macabre way. But it's not encyclopaedic.) There's a reason why, no matter how hard you try, you'll never convince people in the reality-based community that elephants are immortal. They die. OK? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said, couldn't have summarized it better.--MONGO 04:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that the current version is too light for what that chapter links to. That text has no relavance at all. Cheers. 174.89.55.112 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point gives the issue undue weight, as was pointed out more eloquently above, and inserts things like "Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims...", itself a reflexive dismissal. Also, as I have pointed out many times in this context, "The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone" is factually incorrect - steel frame structures collapse due to fire on a daily basis. Part of a steel-framed mall in California collapsed last week in a fire that was not aggressively fought. The WTC buildings are the only tall steel structures to do so, part of a very small subset of steel structures, few of which have suffered such extensive fires.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Undue weight would only be an issue if the 9/11 conspiracy theories page was a stub of nonsense. Considering it nonsense automatically is rather biased, especially in a world where wars are typically started with false-flags. Cheers. 174.89.55.112 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay look, you clearly aren't a new editor. For whatever reason you have decided to stay an anonymous editor, which is usually fine. However, we have had quite a few single purpose accounts that for whatever reason try to push one view on the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. These people also tend to not get the hint, and create sockpuppets to continue the fight even after they are banned. Please note that in no way am I implying you are one of these people. I have no idea, and it would be inappropriate to judge so soon. However, it is something you need to be aware of before we go forward.


 * I need you to realize that while what you are presenting may sound sane and rational to you, it goes against what the established consensus is. This consensus has been formed after countless people trying to change it, and far more voting to keep it the same. The current article is not biased. The current article is fine. Adding more information about conspiracy theories would ad undue weight, even if you don't think it would. This is what the consensus says. If you have a problem with it, I'm sorry. It isn't going to change because one editor wills it to. There is a mountain of reliable sources standing against you, so if you are dead set on changing the established consensus, the first step is to present numerous reliable sources that back up your claim. Until then, please refraim from soapboxing on this issue. And please be aware of the discretionary actions that we are capable of taking against unruly editors because of an arbitration case. This is not a threat, I just want you to be aware of it. --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The first people involved in space research were arrested because what they discovered contradicted the established consensus at the time. Though I'm not trying to change consensus here in any way, I'm just bringing up the issue that this article leaves out many, many details simply because you all know that those conspiracy theories are true.


 * I really don't want to soapbox here over matters of opinion, but the small chapter about conspiracy theories should be a summary of the conspiracy theories article, not an opinion piece about conspiracy theorists. That small blurb of text was written with a bias - please do not tell me otherwise. Sure, my replacement text was biased too, but at least it was all factual. Cheers. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was founded partly by the guy that you (can see in this link via the video).......hope he isn't involved in the design/construction of anything important.--MONGO 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: Bilderberg Group - Your government keeps too many secrets anyways. They use the classification levels to hide criminal activity. Cheers. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Wikipedia allows the Greys article, even though the existance of the alien grey is not an established fact. Everyone here keeps the September 11 attacks article at a higher standard than all other Wikipedia articles, (most of which are garbage anyway). Allowing some pro-conspiracy rhetoric to this article where appropriate is not un-encyclopedic at all, but rather you choose to emphasises how gullible you all are with your bias. Cheers. 174.89.58.95 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are also wikipedia articles on unicorns, dragons and the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary. That doesn't mean the article on Zoology should mention them. You may not have noticed, but there is actually a page called 9/11 conspiracy theories. That's perhaps where you should be posting your comments, rather than on this one. It's great that you've read "most of" Wikipedia, by the way. Quite a feat. It's difficult to accept charges of gullibility from you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main September 11 attacks article. How about making that small stub a bit more accurate, and less biased?


 * PS, what do unicorns have to do with this, boy? The issue here is bias. Cheers. 174.89.58.95 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.112.110.204, 29 October 2010
This Article is still under investigation and is not considered 100% accurate

70.112.110.204 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌; no specific request made. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) This is an empty request as you haven't asked for any specific edit to be made. If you do come back here with an actual request, it should provide a reliable source that verifies what you seek to add, it should be set forth in neutral language, and it should be something that is appropriate with due regard to weight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories:

Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories.

174.89.58.40 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request
I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories:

Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories.


 * No. It's a blog. The text in any case has been removed. Please read policy on reliable sources, if you haven't already done so. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reliable sources on the September 11 attacks page. "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11" is the first referance; Osama is a reliable source? 174.89.58.95 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That particular argument's been tried before. It's been reported by reliable sources and reflects a general consensus of news sources. The HuffPo piece no longer exists and in any case isn't an RS. Your request and the post above seem to be aimed more at making a point than improving the article.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request
I would like to respectfully request that the following text:

"Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was instead demolished with explosives."

Be changed to:

"Conspiracy theorists reject any official reports and preform their own independant investigations. Proponants of conspiracy theories believe that the official reports on the collapse are not consistant with video footage of the World Trade Center collapse."


 * Sounds reasonable. What is the source for the in formation?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/10/21/3044273.htm?site=melbourne
 * http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Elizabeth+moment+truth/3743613/story.html


 * I don't see the virtue in it. Most conspiracy theorists don't do their own research, just as most people who believe in the big bang don't do their own research. Additionally, some conspiracy theorists do not dispute that the buildings were brought down by the planes crashing into them - they dispute who organized it and so on. The current statement is accurate. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you produce a source to verify your statement? 174.89.58.95 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the current wording seems much better than the suggested change. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with either one - the conspiracy theory spectrum spans a wide range between "Mohammed Atta is a convenient scapegoat" and ""WTC was nuked." A focus on the failure mechanism of the WTC is too specific.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the entire section September 11 attacks, you'll see that it does mention a range of various types of conspiracy theories related to 9/11. Nsk92 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving and or deleting, again...
The conspiracy theory proponents have the same old tired and yet still intellectually incompetent rationales to incorporate more of their nonsense in this and related articles. I strongly advise following Mark Twains advice: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"...if you waste time responding to conspiracy theory single purpose accounts or advocates too lazy to register an account, then all you do is provide them with a platform...we already have 53 pages of archives and my bet is 70-80% of the fodder in those archives is rebutting the wacky conspiracy theory advocates. I suggest that rather than giving them a platform, simply archive or delete their comments, as it clearly states we have a mandate to do based on the findings in the 2008 arbcom decision and that is posted near the top of this page...--MONGO 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a prime example of why you can see you're wasting your time dealing with IP single purpose accounts (IP 174.89.58.95)....nothing but a troll and now blocked...he/she starts out first sounding somewhat sane here and here, but shows his/her true colors in last postings like this and lastly with this wonderful edit summary...all in just one day--MONGO 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quickly archiving and collapsing such threads is a good idea, but removing talk page comments is more problematic and, IMO, should only be done in case of clear disruption - vandalism, soapboxing etc. As you say, 174.89.58.95 started out the above thread sounding reasonably sane and at that point still deserved to be treated as a good faith editor; simply removing his/her comments would have been inappropriate at the time. I have little patience and little sympathy for conspiracy theories proponents, but at least some of them are attempting to act in good faith here, and while they do that, they do deserve at least a minimal modicum of polite treatment. Of course, once someone becomes clearly unhinged, like this edit here, they should be quickly blocked (in fact I would give longer blocks in such cases) and any threads they might have started should be closed, archived and collapsed. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the advocacy (signal to noise ratio, etc.) exceeds the effort, then all we end up with more talkpage archives and no article improvement...it is unlikely that CT proponents will be formulative in getting this page to become a featured article....but I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum, even in the face of sometimes overt wackiness....that is a skill I do not have.--MONGO 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect our IP friend was a sock, perhaps Tachyonbursts. The manner of speech was quite similar. It doesn't really matter though, this was the right course of action. Either way, if things get too bad with random IPs we could simply lock the page from IP editing. I doubt we would lose any valuable contributions. --Tarage (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

New Section Request
I would like to respectfully request a small section for 9/11 Truth Movement, either under section 3 or 5, or as a See Also. The [9/11 Truth Movement] article is well sourced enough to be included in the main article, just as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories has it's place in the September 11 Attacks article. The section should include information about the anti-war movement, since 9/11 was the linchpin event for declaring a war of aggression in the middle east.

The authors of this article are really hiding a lot of information. There's no point in bringing new information here since anyone who declares the official conspiracy theory a lie is automatically not a reliable source, including government and military personnel. There are a lot more people than you guys think who take this very seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom5000 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you already know that's not going to happen. Please drop the stick and back away from the horse. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the article was less biased the discussion page would get less spam. Freedom5000 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we'll just keep denying similar requests. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it's not like I pay for Wikipedia or anything - not that anyone would after reading [September 11 Attacks]. Freedom5000 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Iran
I would like to respectfully request for the following to be included in the article:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed that his government would investigate the September 11 Attacks. Ahmadinejad does not mean Tehran is insensitive to the pain of the families of the victims but rather showed a commitment to finding the truth behind an incident that triggered a war in a neighboring country. US President Barak Obama criticized the Iranian president's remarks as "hateful." Freedom5000 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahmadinejad also believes that the United States is the greatest evil in the world and that the Holocaust never happened. I'd personally like my information to come from a slightly more reasonable source thanks. Soxwon (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories section is not sourced
The Conspiracy theories section is very poorly written from an encyclopedia point of view. For example:


 * "Conspiracy theorists question the official version of the attacks..."

Who is questioning the attacks? This statement is not sourced and seems more like POV or opinion pushing, implying the movement is anonymous.


 * "Some proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories have speculated that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks..."

Again, who is claiming this? This is yet another unsourced statement.

This section deserves to be rewritten with appropriate sourcing. Instead of using weasle-words how about giving that section some substance? Freedom5000 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the Conspiracy theories, it is about what actually happened. If you wish to get into more detailed information about what the conspiracy theorists claim, go to the appropriate pages please. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is biased toward the American version
The official American details of this event differ dramatically from accounts of eye-witnesses and foreign media. It's quite offensive to say that media is not reliable because it's either non-English or non-American, or not pro-American. There would not be such a controversy if official conspiracy theory reflected what actually happened. Instead, we have a mainstream media which itself contributes to the lies and deception to promote support for a war of aggression, and we have Wikipedia accounts which support the deception by acting uncivilly toward anyone who rejects the American war on terror. There are even users who like to lie just for the hell of it here. Freedom5000 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm archiving this, you've proven yourself to be just another fringe pov-pusher. Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is still incomplete
The article still does not incorporate any description of the anti-war or 9/11 truth movement. 9/11 was used by G. W. Bush to declare a very unpopular war of terror. The article should cover more opposing views and war protests, just like this article here: Opposition to Vietnam War. Without the opposition, this article becomes so biased it might as well just be deleted. Freedom5000 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Classic WP:SPA. 92.76.137.170 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that the requesting account is a SPA.Jojhutton (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Go away. --Tarage (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened to the good faith and civility? It looks more like WP:GAME to me. Catalyzingevent (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why look, another WP:SPA. I totally care about what you have to say. Please continue, or not. --Tarage (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

...as a reminder once again.--MONGO 03:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories in introduction
Hi, can someone explain why there is no mention of conspiracy theories in the introduction ? (just asking) any link to a rule or a past discussion would be great, thank you.--Spota (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At the top of this page there are links to 54 separate archived discussions from this page. Use the search box to make it easy (since they're long).  Consensus established over the last several years is to not mention the conspiracy theories in the introduction. Antandrus  (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Smells like a WP:SPA. Checkuser please. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * CU is not for fishing and they just asked a question please AGF. Mo ainm  ~Talk  19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was also their first and only edit. Someone deciding that their very first edit should be diving into the September 11 talk page and asking why nobody mentions conspiracies is, at best, unusual. "Brand new" accounts commenting here are, unfortunately, rather common: note the extensive number of blocked "new accounts" and IPs from the previous topics.  Half  Shadow  20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request
Can somebody please change the opening sentence to: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of controversial coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

Sources:, , ,
 * How is ([1] above) "Anger over 9/11 comments" from October 21, 2010, from theage.com.au, a SOURCE? Just listing an opinion article or video doesn't make something fact.  Could the opening sentence (at least) be changed to "The September 11, 2001, attacks were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States, allegedly perpetrated by al-Qaeda members."


 * I live in Denver, Colorado, USA. Here's what our State Democratic Party just added to its platform. This controversial plank was added to the State Democratic Party Platform after evidence supporting the critical need for a new investigation was presented at several caucuses in 2004, 2008, and 2010.
 * "October 29, 2010, Press Release - Colorado Democratic Party Calls for Grand Jury Investigation of 9/11. The 2010 Colorado Democratic Party platform, approved by the 146 member platform committee states:  “The Colorado Democratic Party calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”
 * The jury is still out. Waterflaws (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The attacks are very controversial, and many citizens and politicians alike are still divided over this issue. I would like to see this expanded on in a new or pre-existing section since this is on topic and sourced.

Thank you for your co-operation. 76.68.52.131 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No.--MONGO 19:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above IP...76.68.52.131 comes from the same location as blocked IP 174.89.58.95...check it out for yourselves...here...and...here--MONGO 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --Tarage (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... looks like our IP friend has stated that he has no intention of stopping, so I requested an indefinite semi-protect. --Tarage (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser may turn up a link to a regular user...they may consider that fishing though since I haven't a clue who it could be. They generally only semi-protect talkpages for a brief time.--MONGO 11:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the solution is to grant IP his request for a fair treatment of opposing views. IP is quite right when he states that the article is biased and that it needs to adopt a more neutral stance. His action is clearly vandalism but in the circumstances, it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox to promote either the majority or the minority view. As it is now, this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government. Oclupak (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is now at arbitration enforcement, as Oclupak has previously been cautioned concerning the 9/11 editing restrictions.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For my 2 cents as another unregistered user, I feel the use of the word "controversial" in the suggested change is redundant. Given the nature of the event, it is inherently controversial and this doesn't need to be stated. I do feel, however, that the lead should make some statement about 9/11 having a lasting influence on world culture. It's been 9 years now and I think this is now a fair statement to include (and doing so would lead into the "Aftermath" section of the article). Again just my 2 cents. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a good reliable source for something like that, please suggest it. It sounds a reasonable statement in itself (although that's just my immediate reaction) but what we happen to think as individuals doesn't matter; we need a notable analysis to say it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey, in the interest of improving the article
As it presently stands, the article may appear to some readers to be weak on verifiable evidence which supports the official/mainstream story. If this is the case, it may be worthwhile to consider what could be done to strengthen the article; to make it more complete, verifiably accurate and convincing as viewed by its readers. So here are the questions in this three-part survey: (1) What, if anything, convinced you more than anything else that the official story of 9/11 is complete and correct as presented? (2) Is this convincing material currently in the article, and if not, is it available from reliable sources such that it could be added to the article? (3) If it is already in the article, but appears weak and difficult to verify, could it be strengthened to make it more clear and convincing?

In responding, please try to be as specific as possible. Generalities may be difficult to interpret and act upon. I will break this survey into two sections: responses and discussion. Keeping the responses and the discussion separate should help make it possible to obtain a quick overview of the responses. Please keep the discussion civil and keep the focus on how the article might be improved. This survey is intended to be a search for solutions; not an opinion poll. I will start by offering the first response. My response is only intended to serve as a model in format, not in content. Wildbear (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey responses
Response by Wildbear: (1) Nothing. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable.

Survey discussion
It is not our place to state whether or not the mainstream account of what happened is true. We go by what reliable sources. Therefore, this poll is invalid. Soxwon (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is much that reliable sources say which does not appear in this article. The article may appear unbalanced to many because, while there is a broad array of reliably sourced material available, the material selected may be among the less verifiable and convincing.  The purpose of this survey is to gauge whether or not that is the case, in the view of those participating in the survey.  If there is better material available from reliable sources which could be used, which would lend a greater sense of validity and accuracy to the article, it is reasonable to discuss the possibility of using it.  Wildbear (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, you are arguing that we should try to make the mainstream account more convincing? Soxwon (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I worded it that way; and given your feedback, I realize that I should not have. My desire and intent is to make what is presented in the article more convincing.  Since what is presented in the article is pretty much entirely the mainstream account, I worded it that way.  I should have chosen different wording; but the intent is effectively the same.  Given the importance of the topic, readers should not find themselves shaking their heads in disbelief when reading the article; and I'm sure that many are doing just that.  If the article can be improved in this regard (using reliable sourcing), I think it should be.  It doesn't matter to me what the article contains, as long as it comes across as credible, verifiable, believable, and neutral in point of view.  Wildbear (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, you believe we should bend to the vocal minority of Truthers who believe that the article isn't balanced. I figured as much, but was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. No, we should not give credence to WP:FRINGE theories and ideas. If you believe that editors are shaking their heads in disbelief that's fine. I, however, have not seen this same phenomena, save for a very persistent sock and multiple drive-by truthers. Please don't use your erroneous beliefs to try and push conspiracy theories and change what consensus has dictated. Soxwon (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Wildbear then fix it, if there are things WP:RS are saying then We might as well repeat them as long as things are Given due weight. Right now it looks pretty neutral to me and well sourced so I am skeptical much could be added. Worse case scenerio is WP:BRDThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello ResidentAnthropologist, and thank you for your reasonable feedback. Here is the issue: it is routinely claimed that little or no doubt exists that the material covered by this article is generally correct as presented. Perhaps this is true, and if it is true, great, no problem; it would mean that Wikipedia editors have done their job. The existing contentiousness, both within this talk page and in the outside world, suggests that there may be room for improvement. I can't fix it since I haven't found the sources to do so, despite spending hours every day poring through numerous mainstream and alternative sources for information on the topic. The article appears deficient with no easy means to fix it. Perhaps others have seen something that I haven't. If they have, it might account for the strength of their conviction that the article is basically complete and correct. I would really like to see what they have seen, since I would like to have the same feeling of confidence that the article is well-written as it stands. If they do have the sourcing that I may have missed (and I'm pretty confident that I have missed some critical sourcing) I'm asking them to please put it forward. Doing so could potentially help many readers feel more confident that Wikipedia has written this article to suitably high standards. Wildbear (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The usuals here see no problem; and I agree with them. But even if every statement here was cited by twenty citations from reliable sources... a number of therorists of would consider it still us to be part of the coverup. There is no pleasing them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the article to be neutral, well-presented, well-balanced, and reliably sourced -- pretty impressive actually considering the amount of noisy archives the talk page has. The recent disruptions on the article and talk page -- in my opinion, and based on almost six years experience as an admin -- are coming from a small number of persistent people that we would be best to ignore. Antandrus  (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorse this comment entirely. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Soxwon (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * indeed a very small number The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally against the idea of "surveys", as per WP:PNSD, and while in this case discussion does seem to have taken place, all we are doing is repeating discussion that has occured literally dozens of times already, and that is stated clearly in the FAQ at the top of this page. This article is not going to cover the conspiricy theories, and conspiricy theorists are never going to like that. Too bad. Rapier (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"official version"?
In the section on conspiracy theories, contrasting them with an "official version" of events misleadingly ignores what reporters and researchers in academia and elsewhere have concluded. It's basically a strawman appeal to peoples antigovernment sentiments, trying to present the conspiracy theorists as plucky underdogs standing up to the man. Thats not really appropriate in an encyclopedia article. It says right at the top of the page and in the rest of the article what happened and who did it, citing newspapers, books by professors and reporters, CNN, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.13.51 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are asking. --Tarage (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he objects to the fact that the ridiculousness of conspiracy theories is made plain when shown side by side with the official events. Soxwon (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think the IP means that "official version" sounds weaselly, as if it's "just what the gubmint wants y'all to believe". (and as such, it gives unnecessary credence to conspiracy theorists.) S/he may have a point, but I can't think of a better wording. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too, but no other wording (than "official version") immediately comes to me either. Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "common", "standard, "accepted" or something? And I have to agree, "official" sounds too much like the decision of a Politburo when it's obviously not, but a narrative backed up by journalists, scientists as well as governmental reports. 92.76.143.59 (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Objective journalists do not "back up" a story. They provide coverage which is as complete and unbiased as possible, keeping their own viewpoints to a minimum, and for the most part, let the audience decide what conclusions it wishes to draw from the information provided.  Wikipedia editors should be doing the same thing.  As for scientists, those supporting the "official" story seem to mostly be those working under the benefits of government payroll, government contracts, or government grants.  Where are the independent scientists who have thoroughly examined the official story from a scientific standpoint, and who publicly support it?  And government reports... well, naturally those are going to support the official story.  The authors likely have no practical choice on that matter, if careers are to be retained.  The story looks pretty "official" in its entire basis to me.  Wildbear (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find that statement absurd. "Mainstream" is the least degree of explaining that the theory is generally accepted in the real world that I would consider acceptable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the term official story is too limiting. There is general acceptance of the version of events laid out in the article. That general acceptance goes way beyond official sources into those listed above (journalists, scientists, public opinion etc). I'd be fine with mainstream, or accepted...RxS (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with accepted, but I have a feeling that we would find ourselves under attack from Truthers if we were to actually suggest that scientific consensus really exists on the subject. Soxwon (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hell, the page is generally under attack by Truthers anyway, so... Half  Shadow  21:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the less I like "official", for the reasons given by people in this thread. "Accepted" or even "standard" are fine with me.  Antandrus  (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point HalfShadow, I'll start making the changes here, and if they go unchallenged, we can spread them to other 9/11 articles. Soxwon (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be stated as fact...eliminate "official", "mainstream", "concensus view", etc. entirely...just write it as it is, not as the truthers think it should be. We don't bend to their whims and or accomodate the superstitions they propose.--MONGO 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree with that position, we can't simply act as though they don't exist. We have to at least acknowledge that a portion of the population doesn't believe the accepted version of events. Soxwon (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The distinction "official story" refers to a set of documents and the narrative they construct. Namely: 9/11 Report, NIST invertigation into the fall of the twin towers (2004), NIST investigation on the fall of Building 7 (2008). There is a lot of discussion above regarding whether or not the point of view of "truthers" should be incorporated into this article. I find two problems with this question, 1- It presumes that any opinion that differs from the "official/mainstream/concensus" narrative is part of the Truther narrative and 2- that the people making assertions about what story is mainstream or not, or even how fringe opinions that challenge the "official" narrative are, do so without providing any substantial research to support their claim. I do not pressume to know of any data, but national polls that touch on this subject would be good to include. With that said, thanks for listening and I leave this comment with respect and gratitute for the work you are involved in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.155.185 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are fond of saying, "We say what reliable sources say." So I decided to do some searching (somewhat briefly) to see what phrase "reliable sources" use for this issue.
 * "Mainstream story": nothing significant found.
 * "Mainstream account":
 * Popular Mechanics: "They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11"


 * "Official story/version/account/narrative":
 * dailymail.co.uk: "The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock"... "Or that's how the official story goes."
 * telegraph.co.uk: "...after it emerged that she doubted the official account of the September 11 attacks."
 * Los Angeles Times: "A society of nonbelievers questions the official version"... "...not everybody buys the official narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001".

These mainstream sources don't seem perturbed by using "official" in referencing the account. Feel free to search for more examples of any form of phrasing. Wildbear (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And there are loads of other mainstream sources that are just as happy using the term accepted version. For reasons noted above, the word official has issues other than how many sources use it. RxS (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but consider the context. Those are all sources about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  You're extremely unlikely to find any of those terms in articles about 9/11 itself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I'm open to suggestions. We have to move away from the word official though. RxS (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a summary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How about simply that? "9/11 Terrorist attacks"  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Using "9/11 Terrorist attacks" is better than using "accepted"; as using "accepted" is likely to appear insulting and disingenuous for the large number of people who have doubts about the completeness and accuracy of the mainstream story. Quoting TIME, "A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."(ref)  That reliably sourced report would appear to contradict "acceptance" of the story by the general population.  If by "accepted" you mean that the corporate media and/or some other entity accepts the government's story, and if "accepted" must remain in the text (I don't think that it should), then the qualifier as to who accepts the story should be added.  Better, though, (and more neutral) to just use AQFK's suggestion.  Wildbear (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That 36% is lower than the number of Americans who don't believe in evolution, and very much lower than the number of Americans who think the US government is hiding evidence of extra terrestrial visitation. Just as with the climate change leaks, I'm sure that the complete lack of evidence in the wikileaks transcripts for a conspiracy will not deter die-hard believers. It probably reinforces the beliefs. Such issues are of interest in other articles, but for people wanting to look at reliable accounts of what happened, treating such beliefs as substantially founded misleads them and is against policy on wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You speak much of "belief" and "believers", but belief is not really relevant here. People can believe the official story, or not.  People can believe conspiracy theories, or not.  They can believe that there simply isn't enough information to make an informed judgment.  The issue is acceptance (or not).  If numerous people do not fully accept that the given account is complete and accurate, then it is misleading to imply that they do.  The Wikipedia term for this kind of misleading verbiage is weasel words, and considered inappropriate.  Wildbear (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Accepted by reliable sources. I love how once again you inject polls into this. It's like you are plugging your ears every time we bring this up. Do tell me, how does it feel to never get your way? --Tarage (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "accepted" it means "accepted by reliable sources", then it should add a qualifier to avoid misinterpretation. When I see "accepted" as it is used here, my immediate impression is that it means everyone accepts it.  Am I alone in that interpretation?  If the correct interpretation is unclear to the reader, then it constitutes weasel word usage.  As for how I feel, it doesn't matter.  The article presents a very imbalanced view with respect to what we know about 9/11 history from reliable sources.  I will continue to work toward historical accuracy, balance, and reliable sourcing, working cooperatively with other editors and without concern for the insults which get hurled at me.  I dislike conspiracy theory with a passion. I have no interest in seeing conspiracy theory in this or any other article, except for the minimum necessary to acknowledge that it exists.  I am only interested in accurate, factual, verifiable, reliably sourced documentation.  Wildbear (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is built from reliable sources and paints the mainstream (non-fringe) view of the events as understood by mainstream media, experts working in their field etc. So no, it's not unbalanced. Your view of reliable sources seems to be built on a foundation of public polling (published, I might add, by news operations that don't report CT as anything but a cultural phenomenon). RxS (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the polling reference because it seemed directly relevant to the degree of acceptance by the general population. It may have little or no relevance to the rest of the article, and I wouldn't refer to it except in an instance (such as this one) where it appears to be relevant.  The article is reliably sourced.  My argument that it is unbalanced comes from a perception that it has cherry-picked from reliable sources to present a narrow POV; narrower than the sources themselves have presented.  For example: it has no mention of the topic of air defenses and the FAA; a significant part of the story.  It has no coverage of the resistance to investigation by the Bush administration; which was quite extensive, notable, and reliably sourced.  In contrast to these missing elements, it has a quite lengthy section on "Attackers and their background", which goes into considerable detail.  I entered a small section on the resistance to investigation; notable and reliably sourced by the mainstream media; it was deleted without much of an explanation being given.  If you still think that it's balanced, then we may just have to agree to disagree.  Wildbear (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

re "Objective journalists do not "back up" a story." Oh, naturally. Clearly these people investigating and finding the conspiracy theories are bunk will be construed as further suport for the theory. Thats how conspiracy theories work. Conclusions contrary to the theory are more proof of conspiracy. "The feds got to him, and him, and too! Or else the bastards are in on it. After all, dont all those professors students rely on federal money to pay for college, and so fund the profs salary?" What crap! I wonder someone hasnt claimed the investigators and reporters were Jooz, JOOZ, I tell ya! or that the federal reserve bank did it to destroy records of their currency manipulation. Bring back the gold standard! Anyway, "accepted" is okay. Thanks to the grownups for changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.13.51 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wildbear, popular belief that 9/11 was an inside job is less widespread than belief that evolution is not true. What adjective would you use to describe evolutionary theory? Is it not "accepted"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an good example, VsevolodKrolikov. For the usage of "accepted" that we are discussing here, if someone does not "accept" the mainstream 9/11 story, that does not necessarily imply that they think that it's an inside job.  There is a very broad spectrum of viewpoints on this issue, ranging from complete acceptance, to concerns over minor issues, to concerns over unanswered questions, to strong suspicions of wrongdoing, to full-blown conspiracy fanaticism.  If complete, or nearly complete, acceptance of mainstream account accuracy is intended by the term "accepted", then more than half of the population may fail the "accepted" criteria.  Evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware, is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, and could be accurately qualified as such.  It's not accepted, as far as I am aware, by the majority of the U.S. population.  (I'm not familiar with it's degree of acceptance in other countries.)  For this reason, I would readily concede to qualifying who accepts evolutionary theory, even though, from the scientific standpoint, there is little doubt as to its accuracy.  Such qualification should only appear once in an article, and "accepted" should not be used again without that qualification (to use it again would appear to be arrogantly rubbing it in to those who don't "accept".)  The same considerations should apply on the 9/11 topics.  Wildbear (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "mainstream" view also is actually a diversity of views on causes, organisations and even the fall of the towers themselves. Could you be clear on where you think the boundary lies? By the way, I don't think you've got the point about evolution. You segueway from "vast majority of the scientific community" on evolution to "the majority of the US population" regarding 9/11 (why only U.S. anyway?). The US population is not expert in this. Evolution, alien abduction etc. etc. are examples of how we don't use popular belief to talk about acceptance of facts. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the problem; there are no boundaries. You said it very well:  "The "mainstream" view also is actually a diversity of views on causes, organisations and even the fall of the towers themselves."  The whole topic is fuzzy without clear consensus on many of its issues; and it can be argued that this is a result of inadequate investigation.  (Some additional investigation by authoritative entities could clear this up and lay many unanswered questions to rest.)  Hence I request caution and consideration when using a very assertive term like "accepted".  On your next question, there was no intended segue.  My statement, "It's not accepted, as far as I am aware, by the majority of the U.S. population." was referring to evolution theory, not 9/11.  I referred to the U.S. population because I am not at all familiar with population viewpoints on evolution theory in other countries.  On your last sentence, is it even necessary to state acceptance of facts if no qualifications are given?  Why not just state the facts and leave out discussion of acceptance, if the acceptance discussion is not to be specific?  Wildbear (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the last time, we DO state the facts. The fact is, there is a mountain of reliable sources that state what the article currently states. To do the edit you wish would be adding POV that the reliable sources do NOT use. Somehow I don't think you will ever understand this, and I'm getting more than a wee bit sick of trying to explain it to you over and over again. If you don't give it up, I will file an ArbCom again. Enough is enough. --Tarage (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildbear, as far as I and I think almost everyone else understands it, what distinguishes the mainstream from fringe conspiracy is for the latter a belief in witting US government complicity in the attacks - either in active planning (ranging from preparing buildings lined with explosives (WT7) to the projection of 3D holograms in the sky), or in deliberately acquiescing in attacks they knew were going to happen. In other words, the fringe and conspiracy theorists refuse to believe that the attacks were genuinely the result of small terrorist cells in a country far away planning and executing the flight of large commercial liners into buildings without specific assistance from the US government. That is the bright line. Any talk of diversity of views on either side of the bright line is neither here nor there. I'll repeat the point I made above, accepted does not mean "90% of anyone believes it". It is accepted by people whose specific job and responsibility it is to analyse - analysts, specialists, academics and so on. The usual tawdry crowd producing reliable sources for wikipedia to use.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jsevic, 5 December 2010
I am curious as to why the religious affiliation of the attackers is not mentioned?

Jsevic (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It says Al-Qaida, it has a link. Not done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the link. Nevertheless it's not the same. As an example, to why I am curious, in the same paragraph the author modifies that The American Spectator as the "conservative" American Spectator. Why is this American Spectator conservative but the attackers not described as Muslims, when in fact they are. It would seem to be a significant part of their description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would guess it's because there's is a difference between linking "conservative" to a magazine and linking "Muslim" to mass-murder. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Stating the religious affiliation of the 9-11 attackers is not the same as linking Muslims to mass murder. That all Muslims are linked to mass murder does not logically follow from the 9-11 attackers being Muslim, correct? I believe you have the logic wrong.

I also find it unusual that, in spite of this fact, there's an entire paragraph devoted to alleged hate-crimes against Muslims, which would seem to have little to do with terror attacks in general, and 9-11 in particular, would it not. Should this section not be moved to its own section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm... let's wait for someone else to respond; I've never contributed to this article, so I don't know the exact rationales. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. To further my point regarding my perception about inconsistency, I attach this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan - which identifies Christianity with the KKK. In this Wikipedia page it is asserted (and supported by one reference) that the KKK is a Christian-based terrorist organization. It would seem that the standard you apply above in rejecting my request for stating the religious affiliation of the 9-11 attackers is not the same standard being applied to that of the entry on the KKK regarding its religious affiliation or leanings. Not all Christians are mass murders, as you say.

Thanks for your reply; let's see what else comes up viz responses.Jsevic (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the KKK article says is of course a WP:otherstuffexists point. That said, I'd much rather prefer Islamist to Muslim if there is going to be a reference.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the attackers are (were) Muslim. That this is a fact is indisputable. Why should we not include this information, particularly in light of the numerous references to religious affiliation in Wiki regarding people, living and dead?Jsevic (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we? They were Al-Qaida, first and foremost. Soxwon (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From first principles I would tend to agree with your view. However, Wiki authorship seems to have a propensity for describing religious affiliation and sexual orientation. Further to my simple example, what does Christianity have to with the KKK? If the standards applied for including Christianity in the description of the KKK, even for historical completeness, then surely the same standard must be applied here, even for historical completeness. And then there's the fact that the men were, indeed, Muslim, and Wiki is about reporting facts, is it not?Jsevic (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked. The KKK stuff doesn't link to Christian, it links to Christian terrorism, somehow the equivalent of Al-Qaida. This leaves it up to the reader to interpret in both cases in what way the people in question are affiliated with the religion; FWIW, I read it as, "the KKK abuses Christianity/claims to be Christian/isn't Christian, but says it is". I would object to linking the KKK to Christianity. Same goes for Al-Qaida vis-a-vis Islam. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to step back from my first line of attack, loosely based on relativism. The facts are that the terrorists were Muslim. Someone needs to explain to me why, given this is a fact, this information is not included. Someone also needs to explain why there's a paragraph on Muslim hate-crimes in this section. Let's start from there.Jsevic (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The terrorists were Muslim, yes, but more importantly they were Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida has implications of being Muslim, and are the more specific classification. Would you not agree that the more specific classification is better? The reason there is a paragraph on Muslim hate-crimes is because, sadly, there were some. Since, as you deftly pointed out, the attackers were Muslim, and since the more specific classification of Al-Qaida was not as available to attack, some people went up a level. I tried to explain the above as if it was an animal classification, so sorry if it's confusing. --Tarage (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Having had a look around our pages referring to Christian terrorist groups, they don't talk about terrorists as "Christian" in the general way Jsevic appears to want to label these terrorists as Muslim. I know that's a WP:otherstuffexists argument, but it does suggest that we're not being unusually precious about matters here by avoiding such a label. There does not appear to be any kind of systemic bias towards Islam in this instance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so two replies here. To the first, identifying the terrorists as Al-Qaida so far appears to arbitrary, insofar that you have not given a sound logical reason for classifying the terrorists as such. They are also Muslim, and this is a fact, and Wiki is about reporting facts, it is not? So there needs to be a systematically consistent and rigorous standard applied, especially as what was stated in the second comment. As a segue into the second point, it was stated that "... sadly, there were some..." So, evidently it's all right to include a paragraph on hate-crimes against Muslims, because the terrorists were, in fact Muslims, but it's not OK to label the terrorists as Muslims. Using this logical standard, the appropriate classification would be Hate-Crimes Against Al-Qaida, or, alternatively, the hate crimes section needs to be moved, since this section is about terror attacks and Al Qaida. Being Muslim should have nothing to do with this page, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We want our categorisation of the attackers to be accurate, but we also want it to be precise. (It is also a fact that the attackers were humans, that they lived on Earth, and that they had biochemistry based on carbon, but including these facts in the article would be ludicrous.) Yes the attackers were Muslim, but categorising them as al-Qaeda is more precise, since al-Qaeda are Muslims but most Muslims have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. If the reader doesn't know who al-Qaeda are they can click on the link and find out. Hut 8.5 14:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And there are hate-crimes committed against all sundry of groups, so why include a section on Muslim hate-crimes here, after all the victims were also human, from Earth, and had C biochemistry and should not merit preferential treatment here. In fact, the way this entire section should be written (and from the logic you attempting, but unsuccessfully) applying, there should be no section on hate-crimes against Muslims because this article is about Al Qaida attackers and terrorism, sans any reference to Muslims. I am not sure where the link to Muslims comes in to play, unless, going out on a limb here, the attackers were Muslim and hence there were hate-crimes against Muslims for this reason. Either way this article is inconsistent and seems to give preferential treatment to Muslims, first by ignoring the ethnic and religious orientation of the attackers (which I agree is probably irrelevant), and then, through what appears to be arbitrary, inclusion of a hate-crimes section against Muslims (which, I think is relevant, but in a different section). Either way there's an inconsistency and something needs to change; perhaps a section on Muslim hate-crimes is in order to make this article closely aligned with a NPV.Jsevic (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, as a result of the attacks, there WERE hate crimes against Muslims. That, again, is the most specific category that could be assigned to it. It's not inconsistent. You just seem to not understand that for the attacking group, Al-Qaeda is the most specific category and for the resulting hate crimes, Muslim is the most specific category. I can't explain it any simpler. --Tarage (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot explain it any simpler because it's logically inconsistent, and, therefore, wrong. You cannot, on the one hand, categorize the attackers as Al Qaida and not as Muslim and then turn around and bring Muslims in this section because of hate crimes since this section is about Al Qaida terrorists not Muslim terrorists? The logical thread would follow something like: Muslims were victims of hate-crimes because they are Muslim, not members of Al Qaida, and the terrorists were Muslim, therefore they were victims. This is the logical dependency.

It's regrettable that you're not looking at this logically. There were hate-crimes against Muslims because the attackers were Muslim, not because they were Al Qaida. Were there any recorded any hate-crimes against Muslims after Timothy McViegh exploded his bomb in Oklahoma? How about after the Unabomber? Do you see now how the logic is faulty? Finally, specificity of category is meaningless presently precisely because there should be no section here on hate-crimes if there is no reason to bring Muslims into the picture.


 * What should be added this section then, should be something like "... because the Al Qaida attackers were Muslim, there were subsequent hate-crimes against Muslims due to the perceived, and summarily incorrect, connection with Muslims at-large and a very specific group of Al Qaida terrorsts." I think this is a reasonable compromise to keep this page NPV and logically consistent. As it is now, you've not demonstrated a logical dependency between keeping the hate-crimes section here. Again, Muslims were not attacked because of 9-11 itself; Muslims were victims of hate-crimes because the terrorists were Muslim. Muslims have been victims of hate-crimes long before 9-11. In other words, 9-11 is not a necessary nor sufficient condition of hate-crimes against Muslims, but attacks by Muslim terrorists is a strong necessary condition for hate-crimes. Simple enough?Jsevic (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, your argument here isn't very clear. The concepts of necessary and sufficient condition apply to logic and the application of rules, not to sociological causality. (I presume you're not arguing that hate crimes against muslims became permissible after 9/11!) Secondly, your reference to the KKK above is misleading. The page on Al Qaeda clearly identifies them as militant Islamist, so there's no cover up or silence there. I can't help but feel that what you want to see is "muslim terrorists" in the lede.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's summarily incorrect to claim that the study of sociology should not be subject to the rigors of logic. Logic applies to any field of systematic inquiry to avoid, among many pitfalls, being arbitrary. As a storehouse of human knowledge it is our duty to ensure that knowledge is presented is a systematic and logical format, particularly for explanatory purposes.

So let me explain this to you again. The terrorists were Muslim. I have no problem in keeping this out. However, if you do, you cannot retain the section on hate-crimes because the only connection between 9-11 and Muslim hate-crimes is that the latter happened after the former. But this is meaningless, simply because there have been Muslim hate-crimes long before, and long after, 9-11. 9-11 is therefore not special, unless there was an additional reason for the hate-crimes, and that is, of course, the terrorists being Muslim. To further illustrate the folly of your method, the sun also rose on the day of 9-11, and there were hate-crimes against Muslims on that day. There's correlation, but not causation; this is a common logical fallacy, and it's an egregious demonstration of it here. Wiki should be held to the highest possible standards to retain its utility to a broad cross-section of humanity.

As I said, there should be a section on Muslim hate-crimes. There it would be logically appropriate to include a section on 9-11-related hate-crimes, and explain why. As it is, there's no connection between Muslim hate-crimes and 9-11, other than one preceded the other, and this has no explanatory power (unless you include the terrorists were Muslim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't say we shouldn't use logic! I meant that you're using all sorts of terminology in the wrong way, and as such, your argument isn't clear. Logical entailment and empirical causation are not the same thing. You also say something very odd in the statement "There's correlation, but not causation". The correct form of this statement is "correlation does not imply causation", not that causation doesn't exist. It is a statement about the nature of evidence and proof in empirical science (i.e. that correlation is not enough to show causation), which is an entirely different matter to the nature of proof in formal logic (which doesn't deal in correlations at all). As it stands, it is clear from the article that al Qaeda base their philosophy on a certain reading of Islamic texts, and that the attackers all came from the middle East. There is RS sourcing describing attacks following this that assert a causal link. If you think that the increase in hate crimes against Middle-easterners and muslims occurred for reasons other than these, then please post the sources that say this. Otherwise, it simply isn't clear what your complaint is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That two events are correlated does not imply they are dependent (or, similarly, causative). In other words, all dependent events are correlated but not all correlated events are dependent, or, in a stronger form, causative or proximate. My concern is why there is Muslim hate-crimes section in the first place if the terrorists were Al Qaida? Should there not be then a section on Al Qaida hate-crimes if the terrorists were Al Qaida? The way this article is written one is left wondering what do Muslims have to do with 9-11, or at least wondering why they were singled out for vicious attacks.


 * Where you commit a logical error, and to the crux of my concern, is in your claim above: "Because, as a result of the attacks, there WERE hate crimes against Muslims." Indeed there were, but why? Because the terrorists were Al Qaida? Or because they were Muslim? Have there been any Al Qaida hate-crimes? Answer this question and you can see the logical error in this article. An increase in Muslim hate-crimes occurred because the terrorists were Muslim, not Al Qaida. That this link is not established makes this article extremely unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correlation does not imply causation by itself. However, as anyone with training in research methods knows, one can start to provide evidence for causation if one provides a plausible, viable mechanism for it. This is how we we can say (with appropriate methodological reservations) that smoking "causes" lung cancer, not that a predisposition to lung cancer causes people to smoke. The mechanism here involves people failing to understand the difference between Islam in general and militant Islamism in particular, and indeed Sikhism and militant Islamism, or having semitic features and being a member of al Qaeda. I strongly suspect that people get this from reading the article. With your insistence on "logic", you appear to be presuming rationality and perfect knowledge (as far as I can make out from what you're saying), which can occur in pure economic modelling, but shouldn't in analysis of the real world. These are attacks (so hate crimes) against muslims, middle easterners and Sikhs based on misunderstandings. Idiocy and ignorance, if you like, in thinking that Muslims and Sikhs are no different, and that al Qaeda represents Islam. Here's a parallel example to show how what I think you're trying to say is mistaken: Based on your arguments, attacks on Jews should be reclassified as "hate crimes against deceitful conspiratorial moneylenders" (etc. etc.), as that is the belief motivating many anti-semites. In doing so, one would simply be validating anti-semitism, just as it appears you're in danger of confusing al qaeda and Islam in general here. You also appear to be trying to do original research. There is RS asserting a causal link between 9/11 and a subsequent increase in attacks on muslims, middle easterners and Sikhs. As wikipedia editors that is what we deal with when looking for explanations. You have to provide published research that disputes that, not your own arguments.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In science, and indeed in the human mind, we use inference to test theories that have both explanatory power and predictive power. This is the essence of the scientific method, and Wiki should not be exempt from the "real world," as you state. I believe you are erring by applying your own (editorial) standards as to what constitutes the real world and what does not. A theory that is not testable has zero value, and should not be subject to editorial interpretation (that's why we invented peer review). Thus, a key component of science is testability: can I reproduce the results of a conjecture. If the observation consistent with the conjecture is successfully repeated enough times, a conjecture becomes a law, something universally seen by all observers, held up to relentless and repeatable scrutiny. After a theory has been upheld to testability (and falsifiability), it must be constantly refined based on further observation, to ensure it has the strongest explanatory and predictive power commensurate with current observation.


 * Your smoking analogy is not quite appropriate here, since while not all Muslims are terrorists, we do know that that all the 9-11 attackers were, in fact, Muslim. Whereas, not all smokers die from lung cancer and not all lung cancer victims are smokers. The present article omits this key piece of information in establishing an explanation for the hate crimes. Further to this omission, the present article offers nothing in the explaining why Muslims, and those appearing similar to an erroneous stereotype, were singled out for attack except that they were Muslim. Indeed, the article makes it appear that hate crimes against Muslims were something new post-9-11, when in fact they occurred long before and long after 9-11.


 * The fact that this article claims "Numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners ..." without stating the attackers were Muslim fatally limits this article's explanatory power because one is left wondering why Muslims, and those appearing similar to them, were singled out for hate-crimes. My conjecture is they were singled out precisely because the attackers were Muslim, not because they were Al Qaida, as you claim. Thus, the conjecture I am posing is: were people of middle eastern descent singled out because the attackers were Muslim? And, if so, why? The explanatory theory I associating with this conjecture is: they were singled out because the attackers were Muslim, and humans stereotypically, and erroneously, associate Muslims with being middle eastern. Therefore, those appearing middle eastern were associated with being Muslim and were subsequently targeted for revenge and became victims of hate-crimes. This is (deductive) logic I am referring to. Make sense?


 * It's unfortunate that we evidently must make an appeal to sensitivity, or perhaps arbitrary editorial sensibilities, before making an appeal to science, or at least a theory with reasonable explanatory power. This article falls far short in that measure.Jsevic (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're confusing a very basic and naive version of natural science methods (it's not all physics experiments in the lab, you know) with methods necessary in social science. For example, we can't run experiments like 9/11 over and over, nor can we directly measure people's thoughts (what they say is not the same thing) so different methods are used to analyse the data we get. You appear to have a blind spot on this and I am not convinced any further discussion will help; I suggest a bit of salutary reading up on the issue. As for why Muslims and those appearing to be muslim were targeted, if you think people don't understand why, you've a far lower opinion of our readership's intellect than most. I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom what your problem is, unless you're seeking to stress that the attackers were MUSLIM over and above being members of al Qaeda. And the article does make clear that al Qaeda's ideology is drawn from a reading of Islamic texts. I've no idea why you insist the article is silent on the matter. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

,

First you claim you cannot directly measure the thoughts of people, but then you go on to claim that you can somehow assess the intelligence of your readers. So, if you cannot measure the thoughts your readers, how can you form an opinion of their intelligence? The fact is, there are methods for doing this, and even if there weren't it would not stand as a reason not to attempt to explain the world around us. And, thus, if you do believe your readership has made the connection, what harm is there in explicitly stating it? They're able to form their own conclusion based on the data presented, and adjust the theory to fit the data. It seems you're attempting to adjust the data, by suppression, to fit the theory.

It was not suggested we repeat 9-11 experiments and I am not sure you drew this conclusion. I postulated that people who commit hate crimes toward Muslims do so because of their (erroneous) connection between the attackers, who were Muslim, and those fitting the so-called Muslim profile. I believe making this connection will unambiguously illustrate a contemporary source of human hatred, in this tragic example, and ultimately lead to advancing methods for reducing hate-crimes. Hiding or suppressing data, for whatever reason, serves no purpose in advancing knowledge, including explaining why people commit hate-crimes.

I am not seeking to stress the attackers were Muslim for the sake of making this point; instead, it seems you are suppressing that element of their identity solely for camouflaging this fact. It seems you are quite sensitive to this, and, indeed, it appears this irrational sensitivity is impairing your impartiality. In your role as, evidently, gatekeeper of this article, I am truly surprised at this naivety toward how science works and how knowledge is advanced (nothing personal here, just seems you're putting your own personal beliefs before the data). Science does not make exceptions for special circumstances based on arbitrary edict, sensitivity, or current fads, e.g. political correctness. Either a theory works, or it discarded in favor of an alternative explanation. Sociology is no different from physics or medicine insofar as the process: we pose a theory, test it, and refine it. If it no longer works, we replace it with a new theory. What you're referring in your most recent response more closely addresses the data collection and its interpretation and reliability, which is entirely irrelevant presently, as the data are unambiguous.

And that data is that the attackers were Muslim. Its lack of explicit disclosure as a (the) reason for post-9-11 Muslim hate-crimes demonstrates an inexcusable lack of rigor and objectivity in this article. The victims of hate-crimes were not arbitrarily selected. They were selected because the attackers were Muslim (as well being members of Al Qaida and followers of extreme Islam, which seem to be amply illustrated in the article), and those humans predisposed to commit vile acts of hatred against those stereotyped as representing Muslims subsequently carried out their attacks based on this faulty thought process. Hatred is a most vile form of human behavior and I am saddened that you're letting your own emotions cloud your views on what could otherwise be an important vehicle for advancing the causes of hatred and how it can be combated and suppressed. I thought Wiki was better than this.Jsevic (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of words for a request that wikipedia be really clear that it was Muslims wot done it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. Are you trying to argue that because the article doesn't explicitly say that the attackers were Muslims (though it is very strongly implied and links are given to other articles that do state it explicitly) that the reader will be somehow confused by the presence of sections on anti-Muslim hate crimes and Muslim-American responses? Hut 8.5 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen have not forgotten you, just busy preparing for this coming week. To Mr. Hut's query, I believe the basis of my concerns are clearly outlined in the thread, but the next entry I make will explicitly state them.Jsevic (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"the aftermath of the attacks saw racial tensions increase in other countries between Muslims and non-Muslims"
But... Muslims aren't a race. I suggest replacing "racial" with "communal" or "social" - or just getting rid of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I've removed the word "racial". Hut 8.5 12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (January 2011)
Hi - Please can we change the words "terrorists" to "militants". This isn't a Steven Spielberg movie and in any case the use of the term is controversial. The objective of the attackers seems to have been to destroy rather than to terrorise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.105.74 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved the above from where it was misplaced in the middle of a previous comment. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. We have talked about it before, and reliable sources all call them terrorists. To call them anything else would be NPOV. Next time please read the archives, as this has been proposed numerous times and rejected. --Tarage (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. It is Wikipedia policy to avoid contentious labels . If it is not OK to describe organisations such the Provisional Irish Republican Army or ETA (both who have been widely cited as terrorists by reliable sources) as terrorist groups then no exception should be made here. One rule for all and all that. --Panzer71 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh no, other stuff exists is NOT a valid argument. The label is hardly contentious, it should stay. This is a dead argument. Soxwon (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

interesting
word 'truth' appears zero times in this article. it appears in every tenth news article related to the subject. 188.2.165.179 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you got the "every tenth news article" statistic, but the complete absence from this article is an interesting observation. It would seem to indicate that among the editors who have written this article, "9/11 Truth" and related matters is not regarded as notable enough, or not relevant enough, to warrant inclusion in the article.  This has been discussed to some extent before; for example:  here, here, here, and here. Whether the judgment to keep "truth" out of the article is appropriate or not, the absence of this topic from the article is not necessarily a bad thing.  Sometimes the conspicuous absence of well-known information from an article can be just as telling as if it were included.  Wildbear (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No...the absence of idiotic conspiracy theories from this article demonstrates that idiots aren't the primary editors.--MONGO 20:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an entire article devoted to the conspiracy theories. There is a link to it on the main page. Singling out one movement is not NPOV. Stop asking. --Tarage (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * hmm, i was not referring to the truth movement, but to the mention of the word in general. 1 in 10 articles in google news (archive) mentions it. In regards to the movement, it may be more notable than others. It is a matter of discussion. There is no need to stop asking the questions. Consensus here may change in time, as new info gets published in mainstream sources 188.2.165.179 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 Truth movement has been and still is regarded as WP:FRINGE. It has gotten the appropriate response: a brief mention and a breakout article. Soxwon (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking for then. If you are asking for the inclusion of the word "truth" in the article, you need to realize that Wikipedia does not report "the truth", but what reliable sources say about "the truth". As Soxwon stated above, the 9/11 Truth movement is still fringe. Consensus has not chanced, and it is pointless to discuss this until consensus does change. And by consensus I mean "consensus amongst reliable sources", not "a new IP user has joined the fray of arguing". --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "you need to realize that Wikipedia does not report "the truth", but what reliable sources say about "the truth"." - wat sources with the most cash report as the truth. This is why articles like this on Wikipedia are next to worthless. For example there's no evidence that Bin Laden had anythign to do with 911, yet this article oozes such rubbish, simply because Western Mainstream media mention it enough times. Wikipedia should be above aligning itself with media outlets who simpyl have more money than anyone else. there is no such thing as a reliable source. Vexorg (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "No evidence Bin Laden had anything to do with 911"..."there is no such thing as a reliable source"...pearls of wisdom, surely.--MONGO 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, please remeber that all conspiracy theories have been debunked, while the investigations gave consistent results. No need to include fantasies in the article, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.102.118 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What utter rubbish. Vexorg (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationals' casualties discrepancy
At the beginning of the article it is mentioned that nationals of over 70 countries died in the attacks, but in the 'Casualties' section a figure if over 90 is cited. Clearly this cannot be right- I didn't know which one to change though. Ug (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The 70 figure comes from, which lists 77 countries, and the 90 figure from (both lists originate from the US department of state). There are a number of countries that appear on one list but not the other - I can see Kazakhstan, Jamaica, Liberia, Lithuania, Mali, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia and a load of others. Possibly it is difficult to determine whether someone is a nationality of a country or not. Hut 8.5 11:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the numbers are different, perhaps we should drop it all together and say something more vague like "nationalists from numerous different countries died in the attacks" or something of the like. --Tarage (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as 'more than ninety' falls under the category of 'more than seventy' (does that make sense?) I think 'more than seventy' is appropriate. Numerous countries, in my opinion, under-exaggerates the amount of nationalities who had casualties. Jess xx (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
"Conspiracy theorists" [...] "have engaged in independent investigations".

What investigations? There's no real "independent investigation" on this, as in someone examining documents and performing independent tests. There's a bunch of people uploading videos on youtube. Hardly an investigation. Any reference to any actual "investigation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should instead be stated that they are "calling for investigation"... plenty of sources exist for that. Examples:
 * The Villager: "Schumer and Gillibrand are not the first to call for a new (real) investigation of into the crimes 9/11. The list is long and it’s growing."
 * East Valley Tribune: "I ask you to study the material I have given you and then join me in the call for a new investigation."
 * The Villager: "‘Pentagon Papers senator’ calls for new 9/11 probe"
 * New Jersey On-Line: "9/11 survivors call for renewed probe as 8th anniversary approaches"
 * RT/TV-Novosti: "The eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks have given US activists another opportunity to call on the US government to launch a new investigation into the tragedy."
 * The Keene Sentinel: "A group of local politicians, business owners and other residents has banded together in calling for a new investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks..."
 * Colorado Democratic Party Platform, May 12, 2010 (PDF, page 31): "...the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks..."
 * The Australian: "Kevin Bracken, Victorian branch secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia and president of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, is calling for a 'proper investigation into the events of September 11'"
 * The New York Sun: "...there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in..."
 * Wildbear (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theorists can't handle the truth...instead they seek out the impossible to jive with their preconceived notions that some nefarious entity must be behind it all.--MONGO 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Mongo Yes, but that’s not the point. Written the way it is now, it seems like some independent took up an investigation on his own, examining materials, accounts, papers, etcetera. Which is not the case. No actual investigation was undertaken by anyone of those people who try to sell you books about the pentagon not being hit by a plane while falsifying facts and omitting pictures and accounts. Again, incredibily retarded videos on youtube making incredibily retarded claims only show the complete lack of technical knowledge by these people, and cannot be called “investigation”. I’d change that part.

The way Wildbear puts it seems better, and it shows that these people actually DO nothing, except talking and talking and talking.

I’d say we change it with “call for investigations”. If no one modifies it during this week I’ll go on and modify it if no one is against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes get rid of the "independent investigations" bit but don't replace it with "calls for investigations". Both of them give the conspiracy theorists more credibility than they deserve. Several of Wildbear's sources have nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and other criticism of the 9/11 commission is addressed elsewhere. Lots of the rest relate to the NYC CAN/New Hampshire ballot initiatives, which completely failed some time ago. Hut 8.5 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

@Hut Hmm I don’t know. While I myself find conspiracy theorists a laughable stock, some of the links DO claim that these people do not accept the results of the independent investigations so far and are asking for new ones. The only thing that could look like an investigation was that fantastic piece published on some pay-to-publish review that claimed that the metals they examined some 6/7 years after the facts were rusty. But they called it nano-thermite. And the editor resigned soon after. That’s all I can think of.

How about

Conspiracy theorists question the accepted version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have asked for new investigations, after rejecting the results of the independent analysis conducted by FEMA and NIST.

(I’m not an English speaking native, so if that can be written down better, please do so) Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 16:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies don't allow us to give anything more than cursory coverage of conspiracy theories in this article, since to do otherwise would give the false impression that the conspiracy theories are a mainstream view. Hence the information mentioned in this article about the conspiracy theories is essential facts such as that they think the US government is involved, or that the WTC was brought down with explosives. Plenty of other verifiable and encyclopedic information about conspiracy theories is excluded or moved into sub-articles. Now I don't doubt that there are conspiracy theorists who call for new investigations, but it's hardly one of the defining characteristics of the movement. I'm sure you could write something on the subject in a sub-article (if there isn't one that covers it already). Hut 8.5 17:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was already discussed (in Archive 29) that conspiracy theories are indeed widely accepted (by 36% of Americans). In fact, I would like to put this information back into the article. In addition, this Associated Press article claims that ''"[in 2008] a poll of 17 nations by WorldPublicOpinion.org, an international research project, found majorities in nine of them believed al-Qaida was behind the attacks. However, the U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians." --V111P (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase conspiracy theories are indeed widely accepted (by 36% of Americans) is wildly inaccurate. In any case, content here isn't governed by popular opinion. RxS (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I understand now what Hut 8.5 meant by "mainstream view", he was talking about the number of reliable sources. And I was just going to correct myself about the 36% of Americans - they believe it is "somewhat likely or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them" - an exact quote from the AP article. That's what I want to be added to the Conspiracies section in this article. --V111P (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

now I really don’t know about all the stuff that is coming out of this discussion… my objection was that, written the way it was, the paragraph implied that some of these conspiracy theorists actually went on independent investigations and started examining facts and data and materials… which is not true… apparently now the discussion moved to some other level and I am not sure where this is going, I’m just ok with the changes to the paragraph, since someone reading it could think that there was some independent investigation going on, while all these people do is uploading videos (with terrible resolutions) on youtube. Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 15:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "conspiracy theorists" are conducting independent investigations depends on how you define "conspiracy theorists". If you define conspiracy theorists as people who propose things like reptilian aliens and holograms hitting the towers, then you are correct; little or no investigation has been conducted supporting these kinds of fanciful stories.  If you refer to anyone who is questioning the official story and seeking to verify what actually happened as a conspiracy theorist, then your assertion is not correct.  There is much independent investigation going on every day; various people are probing with intensity and determination to find out exactly what happened, and ultimately, who was responsible.  The numerous FOIA requests issued are an example of this.  Little of this is appearing in the mainstream media; but that does not mean that it is not occurring.  I am not arguing for any change in the Wikipedia article as it stands, concerning independent investigations by conspiracy theorists; I just want to be sure that the record is clear that there are serious independent investigations taking place.  Arguably more important, and with greater coverage in the media, are the calls for authoritative investigation on the matter.  Wildbear (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

FOIA requests are not investigations. Calling for investigation is not investigation. If there is "much independent investigation going on every day", then there will be sources showing this. The sources you linked above are not independent investigations. An independent investigation is the one conducted by NIST or the one by FEMA. Those can be linked and shown. Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your definition of "independent investigation" is unclear. You cite investigations conducted by NIST or FEMA as independent investigations.  Is this intended to imply that only investigations conducted by government agencies can be considered "independent investigations"?  NIST operates under the United States Department of Commerce and FEMA operates under the United States Department of Homeland Security; both of which are cabinet agencies of the Executive branch; which, in the case of the Bush administration, was a White House which (to all outward appearances) did not want an investigation to take place.  So referring to these as "independent investigations" is dubious; independent of what?  Wildbear (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean that the investigations were conducted by technicians, by “technical people” who reported facts, and didn’t care for a specific party or preconceived “theories”. Unlike conspiracy theorists, who think they already know what happened without ever having a single proof of what they claim. (Unless structural engineers all over the world are part of the GONSBIRACY too). For instance your claim that the White House “did not want an investigation to take place”. Really? Show us the evidence supporting this claim. But again, this is not what we are talking about. You said there is “much independent investigation going on every day”. Fine. Then there should be sources about these investigations. I keep seeing none. Therefore, it is incorrect to state it in the article. The rest, I honestly don’t care, since faith in conspiracy theories is impermeable to logic. Steel has a weakening point. Office fires easily reach the temperatures needed to get the steel to weaken. The investigations showed this. Want to try an investigation on your own? Take a bar of steel, put weight on it, and then heat it to 500°C and see what happens. That’s an investigation. Grainy videos of shadows and low quality pictures are not. So again, claiming that there are independent investigations is ok, but it needs to be shown. As since there are not independent investigations, it’s a bit hard to show it. And it’s also incorrect to say so to the people reading. Another easy investigation? Go to your fire department and ask the firefighters about the risks of fires in steel buildings. Unless, of course, they’re part of the GONSBIRACY too. So, source the claim or remove it. Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 14:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "For instance your claim that the White House “did not want an investigation to take place”. Really?" Actually, that's true.  IIRC, the Bush administration at first opposed the 9/11 commission.  Probably they didn't want to be accused of being ill-prepared or incompetent or being told defending the nation against terrorist attacks is more important that reading Pet Goat.  Of course, conspiracy theorists see this as evidence of the government trying to cover up the conspiracy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, then there will be sources. And if the 9/11 commission is an emission of the evil government, why would the Bush administration fear it? Unless they actually are independent. So the claim lacks logic anyway. If the Bush administration was opposed, that means they can’t control the results, and they are “afraid” of the results. Right? Of being called incompetent. But if they control the commission and investigations, why oppose? Just tell them what to say and you’re good. Again, the point here is that these independent investigations do not exist. And if they do, there will be sources. Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to learn more about the 9/11 commission I suggest you read the Wikipedia articles about it. The problem I noticed is that it looks like this main 9/11 article has been severely censored and most of the information used by the critics of the government's actions and inactions, including it's obstruction of the commission's investigation, is buried in the subarticles. --V111P (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh....parts of 9/11 Commission are pretty bad. Looks like parts were written by people with axes to grind, cherry-picking quotes and factoids.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that article, i already requested some changes there too to reflect the sources used. V111P, again, "it seems like" is not encyclopedic and i don't really care. I'll try again to state my point: it is wrong to say that independent investigations were happening, since they were/are not. Therefore, the paragraph needed to be changed. Conspiracy theories about censorship regarding articles about conspiracy theories are just too silly so i won't even go there. I pointed out something inaccurate, it was corrected. I'm fine with it. If any source of actual investigations exist, anyone can link them and document them. Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Idonthavetimeforthiscarp wrote: Take a bar of steel, put weight on it, and then heat it to 500°C and see what happens. That’s an investigation. Thats exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said that independent investigations are taking place.  I also noted that "little of this is appearing in the mainstream media", and while that limits our ability to cite these investigations in Wikipedia, I do not think that it is accurate to assert that no such investigations are taking place.  Here is an example:  NIST wrote in its FAQ sheet the following:  "Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building."(ref)  Is this true or not?  Jonathan H. Cole, Professional Civil Engineer, sought to find out through experimentation.  This video shows his findings.  Watch this (in its entirety) and see whether or not you agree that it's genuine investigation of the sort that you stated.  "Take a bar of steel..."  There are others that I could cite, but hopefully this will be sufficient to illustrate the point. Wildbear (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an investigation, and he admits that he's not an explosives expert. Any discussion about independent investigations in a Wikipedia context needs experts working in their field. It's not a genuine investigation, it's someone playing scientist without any science involved. RxS (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any argument with your position on this, RxS; the documented experiment was given in response to Idonthavetimeforthiscarp's assertion: "Want to try an investigation on your own? Take a bar of steel, put weight on it, and then heat it to 500°C and see what happens. That’s an investigation."  More in conformance with Wikipedia's criteria for investigation might be physics teacher David Chandler's analysis of the collapse acceleration of WTC7, which found that the measured acceleration of WTC7 (using a point on the roofline for reference) was indistinguishable from free fall for a period of approximately 2.5 seconds.(ref-pdf)(ref-video)  This was accepted by NIST and incorporated into their final report on WTC7.  Wildbear (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can check this website: http://www.journalof911studies.com/ --V111P (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can check it if you want to; you still won't find research. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of what looks like research there. Anyway, I don't mind the phrase "and are calling for a new investigation" in the article. There is also the "Building what?" campaign (buildingwhat.com), they have aired ads on New York TV stations last month and were also on Fox News. There is no denying they and others are calling for a new official investigation. --V111P (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And once that one is done, they still won't be satisfied so they'll call for another investigation...the only investigation team they want is one that incorporates conspiracy theory loonacy/lunatics in the process...and reputable engineers and scientists aren't going to waste their time and credentials on an investigative endeavour with wackos.--MONGO 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's entirely your opinion, only, based on who knows what. I include mine then: this guy is NOT a wacko. Also, here are two Google searches which may help to come to the conclusion on what is going on with media today. This and that. lessismore (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh...Architects and Engineers for TRUTH!!!! We can thank them for helping dumb down the world with a lot of mumbo jumbo...the TRUTHERS make the BIRTHERS seem sane.--MONGO 03:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's now remember, everyone, that this is not a forum, and let's just stick to the reliably sourced facts, please. :) --V111P (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AE911truth have no credibility in the professional architecture or engineering communities. All professions have people with odd ideas - it's no surprise to find doctors who subscribe to unorthodox treatment regimes or lawyers with quixotic ideas on the law. AE911 is no different in the A/E field, and confers no special credibility on CT.   Acroterion  (talk)  14:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement
Without making a value judgement on the self-purported 9/11 Truth Movement, the movement has clearly attracted a great deal of attention to itself, warranting an article of its own in Wikipedia. Members of the Truth Movement do not all consider themselves conspiracy theorists, making such a title inaccurate and insufficient as the only mention of this movement in the main 9/11 article. A short section highlighting the salient claims of the Truth Movement is fully in order for this article, considering how active the movement still is. If the consensus view is against a section on the Truth Movement, I suggest the section entitled Conspiracy Theories at least be renamed 9/11 denialists. The term conspiracy is overly inclusive and inappropriate. "Denial" would be a more accurate term, as it suggests a skepticism of the officially accepted view, while remaining non-committal as to what did actually happen. Many 9/11 denialists make no positive claims as to who was responsible for 9/11 or even what exactly took place in the attacks, but make a case against the view as reported in the 9/11 Commission Report. Their position is highly influential in contemporary life and should be described in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1a (talk • contribs)
 * First of all, thank you for discussing things on the talk page, it's considered proper etiquette to sign posts with " ~ " so that other users can know to whom they're addressing. As for it's own article please see 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition conspiracy theories. They are referred to as conspiracy theories, b/c the majority support some sort of conspiracy theory in one form or another. Soxwon (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also hered of the thermite bomb controlled demolition conspiracy theories on Sky and the Descovery Channel in 2009-2010.Wipsenade (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected due to edit warring
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The community expects better of experienced users than to edit war like that. I expect WP:INVOLVED admins to respect the protection and not edit through it, and for all involved to discuss the matter here. All participants can consider themselves warned, if warring resumes after the protection is lifted the next step is the liberal use of blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added an invisible comment: please restore when the full protection terminates . However, because of those indef protections, I don't think the full protection should have an automatic time limit.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Good job guys. Nownone of us can play with the ball.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than protecting, why not block the person who has removed a section three times against consensus? --John (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we don't trim a lot of the fat out of this article, starting with the CT section, then it will never be an FA.--MONGO 03:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not an excuse to edit war, everyone who participates is automatically wrong. @Arthur: I think it would be ok for any admin to restore the previous protections when the full prot. is over, they are more about vandalism. If I'm online when it expires I'll do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a small back and forth...you're overreacting...no one violated 3RR and as I mentioned in my last revert, I was planning on bringing all this to discussion. Plainly put...the CT section has to go if this article will ever be FA potential...about another 50kbs also need to be trimmed.--MONGO 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not an entitlement, it is merely one bright-line application of the edit warring policy, which was clearly being ignored yesterday. I don't have an opinion on the content dispute, that is not relevant to this point as anyone who edit wars is automatically in the wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You waited 3.5 hours(!) after Arthur Rubin reverted me...and I had made it clear I intended to open dialogue on my last edit...then you protect it for multiple days? Yes, you overreacted.--MONGO 00:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested it at WP:RFPP it took some one that long to respond. Considering there was 2.5 while between Authur's reversion and your last removal there no argument that it would not have been reverted again. Honestly too people were using rollback in content dispute as well. Beeblebrox could have removed rights for that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD...and WP:IAR...junk science shouldn't have any focus in an article that should be dedicated to truth. That was one slow motion "edit war"...and a 4 day PP is overkill....might as well protect it permanently because whenever the POV pushing CTers see anyone go after their pet section or links, they all converge like vultures on fresh roadkill...and so long as they are here to keep this article down, it will never blossom into what it should be.--MONGO 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page has seen quieter times, and rather chaotic times. The article did not change or improve much, not during the more chaotic time, but not during the quieter times either. Your conjecture therefore appears not to be based on an honest account of the past evolution of this article. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee...I've worked on this article for almost 6 years...do you think I might have some idea what the article has had to go through to get this good? I have the 3rd most edits on this article...been around on it a lot longer than you...but maybe I haven't since your first edit doesn't look like a newbie edit at all...could you be a topic banned editor?--MONGO 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited on the German Wikipedia for some time before I have started editing on the English Wikipedia. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither BOLD nor IAR are a free pass to edit warring. Slow motion edit warring is no more justifiable than rapid fire edit warring. Why you were edit warring is not relevant unless you were undoing blatant vandalism. Nevertheless, you are free to request unprotection at RFPP at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why you protected it for 4 days is not relevent since as an admin you can use your own best judgment even if that judgement is poor. If you keep insulting me, I'm just going to give it back to you.--MONGO 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I have insulted you, I have only endeavored to clarify the edit warring policy. I believe my protection was in keeping with the protection policy, but as I've said if you don't agree you are free to file a request at WP:RFPP for unprotection. Alternately you could stop arguing about the protection and concentrate your efforts at the discussion above aimed at resolving the content dispute that led to the edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Length of time editing an article is not an indicator of the reliability of edits. Some of yours have been as problematic as those of the POV pushers on the other side of the fence. I also see no problem with getting FA with the section as it currently reads included. It's definitly not a deal breaker on it's own. If you want people to support your view, a polite discussion using facts will get better results. Wayne (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only edits I have noticed you have made to 911 articles are to enhance conspiracy theories...so it does not surprise me Wayne that you would find my efforts to keep your junk science out of this and related articles to be "problematic"--MONGO 23:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your attempt at guilt by implication is typical. In three years of editing the topic more than 90% my 911 edits are still in the articles yet you continue to categorise a NPOV with conspiracy theorists if you dont like the edits. Work with editors to find a NPOV solution to problems instead of relying on name calling to support your view. I see little difference between your occasional promotion of "junk debunking" and others trying to add "junk science". Wayne (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wayne...you're edits have been reverted many times...the only reason you didn't get topic banned for POV pushing conspiracy theories is because you backed off just in time....but that could change if you resume your typical effort.--MONGO 15:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MONGO, I would advise you to take a look at WP:PA. It appears that you have violated it on several occasions in this talk page alone, with multiple editors.  I'm clearly not the first editor to mention this to you.  While you're at it, take a look at WP:CIV Bill Heller (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

disagree that claiming planes were intentionally crashes into twin towers is "original research"
A prior user had put a "citation needed" tag on the claim that the planes were intentionally flown into the twin towers ("The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers ..." the tag came after the word "intentionally"). In the edit, the user asserts that WP:SYNTH dictates that "intentional" requires a citation. I don't see how this makes any sense at all. It is perfectly reasonable to figure that those planes must have been flown into the twin towers intentionally. I think that claiming otherwise is what would require a citation. AlkaloidMan (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC) AlkaloidMan
 * Agree that cit needed tag is inappropriate there. Besides it being obvious, nearly every account says as much. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then cite it if its so damn easy The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good Grief Charlie Brown. No wonder this article gets so much ANI attention and is on probation. Seems that someone's always edit warring over the tiniest little detail.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AHHHHH Welcome to the Jungle We take it day by day If you want it you're gonna bleed but thats the price you pay The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, there is no need for a citation tag or citation IMO. Unless two of the greatest instances of pilot error in the history of aviation both occurred on the same day at the same sight, there was OBVIOUSLY intent by SOMEONE (whether it be terrorist or gov't) to fly those planes into those towers on purpose. Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out people. Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've generally been refraining from commenting in order to retain administrative neutrality here, but I think I can comment on this particular issue and maintain that neutrality. Whether mention of the conspiracy theories belong in this article or not, this article is about the facts. It is a verified fact witnessed by thousands of people in person and millions more on television that airplanes collided with the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To suggest that this was not a deliberate act is ridiculous in the extreme. Even if you believe in the the various theories about why or who, that planes were deliberately crashed into the WTC is a fact. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously. There was some supposition between 8:46 and 9:02 AM on September 11 that the first strike might have been an accident, but nobody has seriously suggested it was anything but intentional action since the minute the second plane struck. Even all the "truthers" I've ever heard of, who dispute practically everything else, do not dispute that it was an intentional act ("by whom" being a separate question). If this needs a citation, just cite the 9/11 Commission report. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I completely agree lets cite it so people can stop bitching about the lack of sourcing. Thats what I always do. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, b/c you don't need to cite that Winston Churchill was a man or that there are no more dinosaurs. People challenge who flew the plane or that there was a plane at all, but NO ONE who thinks a plane hit the WTC thought it was an accident, hence this is nothing more than trolling. Soxwon (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no cite needed...for all the reasons listed above. No one is bitching about the need, and the one person who put the cite request there is a mostly inactive editor with truther propaganda on their userpage. We cite this and the flood gates are open for over citation by every POV pusher that wants to make a point anywhere on Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You both are absouletly right, shouldnt have to but some one has done it. I put a citation on every sentence of an article I wrote just becuase almost every statement would be challenged by some idiot complaining about something not being true. Its a pain but sometimes it needs doing. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The person who added it is a known POV pusher who has been banned before for it. Ignore, move on. --Tarage (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack, Tarage. And RxS, the word 'truther' is POV pushing in itself. I am only pointing out that Synthesis is prefectly described by phrases like:
 * "It is perfectly reasonable to figure that those planes must have been flown into the twin towers intentionally."
 * ...but what kind of source is there that can ACTUALLY state the intent of the pilots? Who has the information about the state of mind of the pilots? User:Pedant (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll call your bluff. If you feel it's a personal attack, and that we are being unfair, do something about it. Start up an ANI. Until then, your proposal is rejected. --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarage, Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore him, all he wants is attention. Soxwon (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're taking WP:SYNTH to a new level of literal interpretation and creating your own synthetic variation in the process: you imply that there is some likelihood that it wasn't intentional. Absurd.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SOUP. Stop it, please.  Claims of "original research" on this point are blatantly absurd. Antandrus  (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I already provided two sources which explicitly state that the planes were intentionally crashed into the buildings a week ago. Verifiability has been satisfied.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that a pedant may be expected to be familiar with WP:TEND, but that does not excuse tendentiousness. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability requires more than just an explicit statement. Your first ref is an uncredited report, the second just comes from the AP... both contain the exact quote "terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners and intentionally crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City. " but no source as to WHO says this and how someone can be a source for the state of mind of another person on a plane miles away. Neither of those sources is OR CAN POSSIBLY be authoritative on the state of mind of the pilots. It is synthesis on its face to take the actual facts of 9/11 and from those facts extrapolate the state of mind of the pilots. Because the state of mind cannot be known, there cannoty be a source for it. It's the top story in the world over the last decade, so why is the only source available a quote of an unknown person? and Tarage, stop making threats against me, if I am doing something wrong, then do something about it, if not then stay off my user page! User:Pedant (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I never said it was OR, I said it was SYNTHESIS. User:Pedant (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * State of mind or intent of the islamist terrorists hijackers? Looks like they deliberately crashed them...what do you think they were thinking about doing? Going to Disneyland?--MONGO 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * NOW you are adding MORE detail to your POV push, (and you have openly admitted to having a POV and you have exerted active ownership over this page from the beginning.) 'Just because it LOOKS obvious'' doesn't mean it's true, or verifiable or validly cited. You see that blue link where it says verifiable? Verifiability is essential to an article of this importance. User:Pedant (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Time to eliminate the Conspiracy Theories section
The conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 are just as preposterous as the Moon landing conspiracy theories which in the article Apollo 11 are relegated to a simple link in the See also section...at Barack Obama...there is no easily found link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories...both the Apollo moon landing CT and the Obama citizenship CTs are, like the 9/11 CTs most definitely the textbook definition of WP:FRINGE and in keeping with precedents at the Apollo 11 article as well as at the Barack Obama article, conspiracy theories should be relegated to a simple SEE ALSO link or not mentioned at all...this website is not a platform for the fringe to promote their version of reality...there is precedent in arbcom cases to ensure this website does not permit advocacy of fringe science or Pseudoscience at the detriment of real science...see:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience...in another ongoing case where fringe theory POV pushing is also soon to be shown to be unacceptable one can read the proposed decision of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Proposed decision. The 9/11 CTs have no basis in fact, are defintely fringe and should, as is done with similar preposterous CTs such as at the Apollo 11 and Barack Obama articles, be relegated to a see also link or no link at all.--MONGO 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep section The section does not advocate any fringe theories. It reports about the fact that these theories exist. Clearly, as evidenced by numerous reports in reliable sources, the existence of these theories is a notable fact. Please do not accuse other of POV pushing, when you yourself have expressed your own point of view and have disparaged other peoples' point of view repeatedly on this page. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like to see the CT section go away, I think that its pervasiveness and longevity give it enough WP:WEIGHT to stay for now. Soxwon (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While I recognize I may represent a minority point of view, I agree with MONGO; I think they should go. Wikipedia's worst problems are not where there are genuine competing points of view -- we solve that by covering both -- they are where one point of view is reliably sourced, and one is utter nonsense,  repeatedly debunked in reliable sources, but pushed, pushed, pushed by the fringe types who have discovered in Wikipedia an ideal environment for their campaigns, which fail elsewhere.


 * IMO, a "see also" link would be sufficient. Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am surprised to read the above statement from you, a sysop on the project. That these theories exists is reliably sourced, and certainly not an extraordinary claim, as we probably all agree that they exist; the section does not make any claims that are not backed by what the large majority of reliable sources have reported repeatedly. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are sysops expected to be more supportive of conspiracy theories? What does my sysop status have to do with this?  I'm giving my opinion, I've done no edit warring, and I'd appreciate if it you'd avoid tossing red herrings onto the path. Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with User:MONGO, and he makes a good point when comparison with other articles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the theories are preposterous, but are reported in reliable sources. Perhaps some of the detail could be cut down, but eliminating the section violates Wikipedia core principles, and I'm not convinced it's a good idea.  MONGO's argument could be used, for instance, to delete the Chiropractic article, as there are no reliable sources that it works, although there are reliable sources that it exists.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur...unlike the chiropractic article, we have known facts about the event/issue. The only time reputable magazines and similar report about the 9/11 CT is to poke fun at them...I think just sending them elsewhere is best.--MONGO 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've left a note about this discussion at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time we banned all those that routinely use these articles to platform 9/11 CTs...as arbcom has made it clear can and should be done.--MONGO 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment seems to shed some light on the motivations of . Cs32en   Talk to me  02:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please dont assume a casual humor of about Banned Socker User:Freedom5000 has anything to do with content issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the section seems appropriately weighted in the given context. I too wish that all these theories would go away, but as wikipedia is about neutrality, My POV is of no concern. As to the juxtaposition against the Moon Landing Hoax theory, the two are not weighted the same in the overview of history as their are far fewer people who believe in this conspiracy theory than the other.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - The conspiracies are very widespread, and abundantly documented by reliable secondary sources. It is not our job to censor WP, but just to report the facts.  That the theories are considered ridiculous by the vast majority of mainstream sources can be clearly stated in the Conspiracy section.   If a reader comes to this article seeking to learn about the validity fo the conspiracy theories, is it not better to explain than to conceal?   --Noleander (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a (minimal) inclusion as well. It's a fact that these conspiracy theories and conspiracy pushers exist and have affected the dialogue over the attack, and the disputation here is a reminder of it. We surely ought to avoid undue weight, but we should acknowledge that part of the cultural effects spawned by the attack. As a side point, remember that Freedom5000 is community banned. If you see any edits that obviously come from that individual, you can just revert without giving any thought to the matter, and certainly without the need to feel stress about it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander and Gavia make a valid argument...but my thinking is that to progress and get this article to FA level, it needs some massive trimming and since the CTs surrounding this are so preposterously ridiculous, that is as good a place as any.--MONGO 03:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to reduce the size of the article, the best solution is to follow WP:Summary Style guideline. In other words, every major section in this article already has a "main" sub-article (based on WP:Content fork).  Thus, each main section could be reduced to, say, 3 to 12 sentences, and if the user wants more detail, they click on the "main" link that is present at the top of each section.   To pick a random example:  the "Memorials" section is rather large, yet there is an entire article dedicated to that topic. --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely....been there...the article should discuss primarily the event itself. And: elimination of fringe is paramount.--MONGO 04:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that the conspiracy theories should be eliminated, but that is just your opinion. Other editors think they are an important, if small, aspect of the overall topic.  Just as a discussion of evolution should mention creationism.  Maybe you should start a survey to solicit a broader range of opinions.  --Noleander (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A better example is Origin of the Universe. Evolution is a concept, not an event. As such, it has nothing to do with creationism. But this article is not titled "Official account of the 9/11 attacks". Its topic are the September 11 attacks, their background, and their aftermath, including the reception. Cs32en   Talk to me  05:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment MONGO, you HAVE to acknowledge the existence of a significant number of people who believe something, even if they are wrong. At one point in time, a significant portion of the people in the United States believed that the US gov't wasn't revealing the whole truth. That's several million people in the United States alone, not something that can simply be swept aside as fringe. I agree, they're completely, but there are enough of them to warrant inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding the motivation of getting this article to FA status.  FA is a good goal, but is not the overriding priority for every article in WP.  The top priority, instead, is getting good, reliable information to readers.   FA status is just a tool, a path, to provide good information.  I've seen articles that had good information removed because an editor "bull-dozed" the article to FA status.  FA is a means to an end, not the end itself.    Deleting a section that has been in the article for 5+ years (!) is something that should be carefully deliberated.  Post the idea on the Talk page, then wait a week.  There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FA represents potential and even the best FA's always have some room for improvement...the process to get an article to FA might just bring in many others that are generally not interested in routine editing..the prose, format and outline would improve during the process and the end result would be a decidedly superior article.--MONGO 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to those who support a "minimal" inclusion, our experience is that such sections grow and require continuous effort to keep them "minimal". With no inclusion of Moon landing and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in corresponding articles, both solid precedents, I see no good argument for inclusion of conspiracy theories in this article. If anything, the case for inclusion in this article is weaker than for those examples. Since there is no single September 11 conspiracy theory, but rather several, with variations, that frustrate attempts to write a succinct summary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: has informed  about this debate.  Cs32en   Talk to me  18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps b/c 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a world-wide phenomena with multiple countries holding millions of believers. Again, I'm not saying this makes them right, but you can't simply ignore them. Soxwon (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 9/11 conspiracy theories exists. It is manifest that we do not ignore conspiracy theorists. In this article, a "see also" item suffices, in my judgment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I cant even believe that this is an issue. The section is only two small paragraphs making up little more than 1% of the article and even less if the theory rejection sentence in the section is excluded from the count. The text goes no further than stating that the theories exist so claims that the mere existence of the section is POV pushing can not be supported. If WP:UNDUE was strictly followed the section could be even larger and not to mention them at all is indisputably a violation of that policy. Then there is the issue of how deletion will be used by prominent theorists to support their claims. I totally reject POV pushing from both sides of the issue.Wayne (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those that have previously supported having this section and even expanding it are likely to be the ones most likely to be in a state of disbelief. Thanks for bringing up UNDUE...since the CTs are bogus, mentioning them here breaks precedent with what we find in the Barack Obama article where his birth certificate/citizenship questions aren't even discussed at all...yet polls show that as many as 35% of U.S. citizens have various degrees of doubt as to whether Obama is a U.S. citizen. However, like the Obama citizenship issues, the 9/11 CTs are based on misinformation, wrongful misrepresentation, and in the worst cases, simple lies.--MONGO 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mongo, may I point your attention to WP:OTHERSTUFF and thus why your argument about the birthers doesn't apply? Soxwon (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Soxwon: I don't believe that WP:OTHERSTUFF applies and let me explain why. The general principle of OTHERSTUFF is that just because something is done incorrectly in another article, that doesn't justify the same mistake in a second article.  This makes perfect sense.  However, in the case of Barack Obama, this article is a Featured Article.  Featured articles go through an extensive review process for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style.  Only about 1 in a thousand articles ever reaches this level.  So the fact that Obama ommits birthers is strong evidence that this is how articles are supposed to be written. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama was promoted to Featured Article status in 2004. At that time, the birth certificate theories were not notable. Therefore, your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFF could not be applied in this case because of the FA status of the article on Barack Obama is invalid. Cs32en   Talk to me  18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama was promoted to WP:FA status on August 12, 2004. Since then, it has undergone seven featured article reviews, the most recent was completed on March 16th, 2010.  Go to the talk page and expand the "Article milestones" section at the top of the page to see for yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said. However, looking at the last three reviews, none of them were substantial. The review requests seem to be primarily motivated by the personal political views of the respective editors, especially the last review request of March 16th, 2010. Cs32en   Talk to me  19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If Wikipedia and the Internet had existed in 1951, I'm pretty sure we'd have the same issues with the Pearl Harbor article. I support minimal inclusion, perhaps as small as a simple section hatnote. As Wseigmund points out, this presents the problem of creeping growth. Events of this kind inevitably produce conspiracy theories: Pearl Harbor (controversy section and link), the Kennedy assassination (brief mention and link), TWA 800 (likewise). Similar issues plague Shakespeare authorship, homeopathy, autism, the MMR vaccine ... It's human nature, and Wikipedia is a magnet for those who would promote their theories. It's also exhausting for long-term editors to try to maintain some balance, and the issue discussed here reflects some of that frustration. The 9/11 conspiracy spectrum runs the gamut from a reasonable "we don't know everything that happened" to the notion that everybody in Lower Manhattan on 9/11/01 saw, heard and felt holographic 767s. We can't hope to address that in this article, and it has a good home elsewhere that does a reasonable job of presenting the spectrum of views. As a cautionary example, the Kennedy article was, for instance, was a GA, but has been worn down by conspiracy enthusiasts. The talk page there makes this one look tame.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but the arguments presented for deleting the material so far are "it's stopping it from getting to FA" or  "its really hard to fight off those wacko nut editors".  Those are not good reasons.  Here is the kind of argument that I would find persuasive:  "Of the top 20 non-fiction works on the 9/11 attacks, only one mentions the conspiracy theories.  Of the 820,000 news articles on the topic, only 0.1% mention the conspiracies."  That would help us assess the relative significance of that section. --Noleander (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia...we're better than other sources. We set the standard. Look at the archives this article has...how many kb's in those do you think were really dedicated to working to make this article "better"...the vast majority of the archives show clear evidence of POV pushing by swarms of CTers...many repeat offenders...people like myself have tried for 5 years or more to keep their wacky notions at bay....and this article languishes because no one can surmount a real effort to make it better when so much time is wasted dealing with nutburgers.--MONGO 01:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For German Amazon bestsellers on the September 11 attacks, it's 7 out of 20, for Amazon France, 9 out of 20. Cs32en   Talk to me  18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion and expand the section. Many people do not believe in the official story about what happened and there is a lot of information devoted to this. Very notable subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why it has its very own article, allowing for whatever level of detail is appropriate, as do all of the articles cited above. The parent article should not become a validation of fringe theories by undue weight.  Acroterion  (talk)  17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the problem with having a section here summarizing the content of the main article and linking to the main article? Thats not a "validation of fringe theories by undue weight". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing for at most retaining the status quo, which is a summary section linking to the main article, consistent with the examples I cited. I don't endorse expansion in the parent article, which is what your initial comment advocated.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep section, make sure it is accurately negative Moon landing does in fact have a quite similar section. The Conspiracy craziness is if anything a more important part of the 9/11 story; we just need to make sure that it is clear in this context that the theories are complete bosh. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Removal The section should not be here per WP:ONEWAY. To those who support its inclusion, I'd like you to point any serious article about 9/11 that also explains 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep section. The section on conspiracy theories is small and neutrally worded.  I don't see any problem with it.  On a personal note, I was in the Pentagon during the Sept 11 attacks, and helped out at the triage areas.  I spoke with people who either saw or heard the airplane hit (I was on the opposite side of the building at the moment of impact), but I believe Wikipedia should acknowledge that it has been reported in reliable sources that some people have alternate theories of what actually took place. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How does your personal involvement fit in? Why do other articles minimize the CT component more than this one? The size of the section is less an issue than the fact that it is even mentioned...my early 1980's physical anthropology books don't mention Bigfoot at all...even though forensic and physical anthropology was less advanced than it is now and the Bigfoot craze was much more popular then. If we at least reduce it to just a see also link, then we're being more than charitable I think.--MONGO 02:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't want you to...I have never agreed with you....jus so ya kno.--MONGO 02:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68: I don't dispute the section is neutrally worded or is reliably sourced.  The problem is WP:ONEWAY.  I'd doubt if you'll find any serious article about 9/11 that also explains 9/11 conspiracy theories.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep section per Cla68. --John (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw this mentioned at the fringe noticeboard. I agree with Soxwon. I was in the vicinity and I'm personally offended by those conspiracy theories. I'd love to see that section vanish, but I just don't see any justification for removal at this time. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Coment I previously cited WP:ONEWAY and challenged those who disagreed with the deletion of this section to provide some articles about 9/11 that also include a section explaining 9/11 conspiracy theories. So far, no one has been able to do so.  If no one can come up with a valid reason to justify the inclusion of a fringe theory in a mainstream article, it should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's an easy case to be made for it's exclusion, from WP:ONEWAY: Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. Note the last sentence. Conspiracy theories are not discussed in a serious way in reliable sources the way say, Global Warming disputes are. Does that mean it'll happen? Probably not, there's some long term POV pushers that will fight it well past any sensible amount of time. And just as another note, we don't decide on content on the basis of best sellers lists (or opinion polls for that matter). RxS (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You say "Conspiracy theories are not discussed in a serious way in reliable sources ..." ... yet many sources do discuss the theories, such as the NIST report . Im not too sure Global Warming is the best comparison. --Noleander (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't discuss it...a discussion is a back and forth...they just outright refuted it. Section 3.3...that is about the WTC 7 collapse...not the attacks, the focus of THIS article.--MONGO 12:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the "many" mainstream sources that seriously discuss CT in the context of the attacks? RxS (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A discussion, if the notion refers to written statements, does not need to be "back and forth" (although this was actually back and forth with regard to the 7 WTC free-fall question). Cs32en   Talk to me  16:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep section In reply to A Quest For Knowledge I Quote Time magazine:This (conspiracy theories) is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality. Wayne (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I take ONEWAY seriously and appreciate it being brought into the discussion here. However, in searching through the Internet I immediately found that the US State Department itself has a web page devoted to debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories.. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazon, for example, has both CT and non-CT bestsellers in the section "September 11 attacks". It does not have "September 11 attacks" for non-CT, and "Conspiracy theories → September 11 attacks" for CT books. Cs32en   Talk to me  16:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty: Yes, but that's an article specifically about the 9/11 CT. What I'm looking for is an article about 9/11 which also includes an explanation of CT.  This is one of the arguments, I believe, that Viritas (sp?) made regarding the Time Travel in the Circus film.
 * Cs32En: How Amazon categorizes it's book has no bearing on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are overlooking the fact that the section in this article DOES NOT explain conspiracy theories. It only states that they exist and even then it only mentions those that have not been conclusively debunked so it cant be claimed that mention is undue.Wayne (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure it does, and not that it matters. Time Cube, for example, shouldn't be mentioned at all in article on physics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest, I definitely have an open mind on the subject, and would be happy if ONEWAY justified elimination of the conspiracy theory section. Let's leave it at that. I'd like to see more views on this issue, and maybe I'll flip-flop on this. I've asked Viriditas to weigh in on this issue, as he has a good grasp on ONEWAY.ScottyBerg (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: User:John (long, drawn out prior history on the WTC 7 article), Wayne and User:Cs32en all have a history of supporting conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 at the expense of the known evidence and therefore should have their opinions noted as such...they are part of the problem that has kept many of these types of articles from improving since they operate either overtly or more subtlely supporting those that have advocated for fiction over fact...this is disruption, plain and simple. Others that support the current coverage of the CTs of this event deserve fair consideration of their viewpoints since they have no history of POV pushing the CTs regarding 9/11. I appreciate all those that have commented..there is currently NO CONSENSUS to alter the section as I did, and I will not do so in the future. I think we can conclude this discussion.--MONGO 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mongo, I'd suggest leaving this discussion open for a while. I'm beginning to see validity in the argument for ONEWAY, and may change my original view that the section should be kept. As you know, consensus is not an up or down vote but is dependent upon strength of arguments, and I think that ONEWAY needs to be thoroughly explored. While my "gut" told me that the section should stay, policy may well overrule my gut. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with User:John's editing but while I have not agreed with some of User:Cs32en's edits I value his input as he presents proper arguements rather than dismissing everything as "wacky notions" without an explanation of why they are. I may be wrong but "preposterously ridiculous" does not seem like a valid arguement. I also point out that in three years of editing the topic more than 90% my 911 edits are still in the articles yet you continue to see NPOV editing as pushing conspiracy theories if you dont like the edits.Wayne (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * may be a good reference to determine the appropriate weight that conspiracy theories should receive in this article. Information from the book can also be used to determine how to present CT-related content in the article. For example, on page 65, the book says: "Conspiracy theories surrounding September 11 spread quickly via the Internet and were addressed and challenged in mainstream media." Cs32en   Talk to me  00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If this was the 9/11 terrorist attacks in popular culture article, I'd probably agree that these conspiracy theories should be mentioned. But it's not.  So if nobody can provide a valid argument that WP:ONEWAY should be ignored, this section should be deleted.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The current article includes all aspects related to the September 11 attacks. There is no reason to exclude popular culture, as your comment above may suggest. Cs32en   Talk to me  09:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can't come up with a good reason to ignore WP:ONEWAY, there's no doubt that it needs to be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should try to verbalize your thoughts in a way that is conducive to a constructive discussion. You failed to provide a good reason why WP:ONEWAY would be applicable. Cs32en   Talk to me  11:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done that several times already. No one's been able to produce any articles about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that also include a serious and prominent explanation of 9/11 conspiracy theories.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest: I saw your request above, when you first made it, but I could not understand it, so I did not reply.  Could you explain some more?  This article September 11 attacks is a top-level WP:Summary style article.  It summarizes all the material about the topic, and it is the parent of a couple dozen sub-articles, (see WP:Content fork) including September 11 conspiracy theories.      That seems like a natural organization.  The key question we should be asking is whether secondary sources talk about the conspiracy theories or not.  You are asking whether WP articles discuss the topic, but - as you know - WP cannot be used as a source.   (Or,  are  you using the word "article" to mean sources outside WP?  If so, there are many that discuss the conspiracy theories, as part of a broader discussion).  --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * {ec}Yes, I'm sorry. By 'article', I meant sources outside of Wikipedia.  There are many that discuss conspiracy theories, which makes that topic notable, but I am not aware of any article about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that also includes a serious and prominent discussion of conspiracy theories.  I tried looking for some the other day, but did not find any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see that the article John F. Kennedy assassination has an entire section on the conspiracy theories associated with that event. I think the parallel with this article is strong:  although all mainstream researchers consider the conspiracy theories to be marginal, the fact that they are discussed so widely by the public is a reason to include some mention in the main article, if for no other reason than to explain what the theories are, and why they have been dismissed. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've thought about it a bit, and my feeling is as follows: given the requirements of ONEWAY, I think that the burden is on the people who want to retain this section to demonstrate that it is included in RS sources that discuss 9-11 in general, and not just included in RS sources that discuss the conspiracy theories, of which I agree there are quite a few. Re the Kennedy assasination, my recollection is that the Warren Commission, congressional Assassination Committee and other reliable sources discussed conspiracy theories. The 9-11 commission did not. However, if there are any, it will resolve the issue, so the burden on people wishing to add this section should not be too serious. If no such connection has been made, then I would support removal. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In an overview of its Times Topics series, titled Sept. 11, 2001, the New York Times mentions the conspiracy theories. Cs32en   Talk to me  17:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just half a sentence, a fleeting mention, while ONEWAY requires "serious and prominent" discussion in the source. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty: I think you are reading too much into ONEWAY:  (1) it is just a guideline; not a policy.  (2) the ONEWAY guideline simply requires that the sources be reliable: the sources that  focus on the conspiracy theories are reliable sources for the conspiracy theories; (3) your proposed requirement is a catch 22:  any source that discusses the conspiracy theories, by virtue of the discussion, becomes non-reliable.    E.g. Debunking 9/11 myths: why conspiracy theories can't stand up to the facts ... a full book (with a forward by Senator McCain) ... is that a reliable source?  Is it about 9/11?   We should not let wiki-lawyering get in the way of our primary goal of helping readers navigate the information in this encyclopedia.  If the conspiracy theories are widely debunked, that can be clearly stated in this article's text. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that NISTs rejection of conspiracy theories in their report qualifies. Or wasn't it a "serious and prominent" rejection? Wayne (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Noleander: You're correct that it's a content guideline, not a policy, but it's not "just" a guideline - it represents best practices on Wikipedia. The remainder of your points are simply wrong. As I said earlier, there are many reliable sources that discuss the fringe 9-11 conspiracy theories, so obviously, since I've said that, there is no "Catch 22," and neither is it correct that ONEWAY deals with adequacy of sourcing. The point is to exclude fringe theories from articles not about fringe theories, unless a reliable source connects them in a serious and meaningful way. The burden is on editors wishing to include the material. So far, none has been offered, so as things stand right now, just to be clear, I am opposed to including the section. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, it's a short mention; the entire text of the NYT is very short. However, it is an overview that is published by a very authoritative newspaper in a very prominent way. Cs32en   Talk to me  18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just read ONEWAY I cant see how it supports exclusion. There is nothing in the policy that requires a "discussion." Only that they are connected in a serious way. A rejection of conspiracy theories by a RS is sufficient for inclusion and UNDUE now comes into play as to how much mention. WP:WG may also apply. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We should try to clarify what the WP:ONEWAY guideline actual says. The guideline is meant to discourage discussing fringe theories, generally about scientific topics, in articles about these topics. Thus, Flat Earth is not being mentioned in Earth. WP:ONEWAY also provides an example for a legitimate inclusion of a fringe theory:

""Astrology — There are plenty of reliable sources which describe how astronomy is not astrology, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter.""

Now, scientific books on astronomy do not mention astrology, of course. Neither do most books about the September 11 attacks mention 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the conspiracy theories, and that compare these theories with the events and with the account provided by the official investigations. Cs32en  Talk to me  18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Any book that covers astronomy's origins or history will also include an explanation of astrology. Also, any book which explains the difference between astronomy and astrology would naturally cover astrology.  For example, astronomer Carl Sagan's book Cosmos (published by Random House Publishing Group) has a chapter about astrology.  Check out chapter 3.  It contains serious and prominent coverage.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Carl Sagan's book is not about astronomy, but about the cosmos. As such, it talks about both astronomy and astrology, as ways that people have tried to understand the universe. Chapters 1 to 3 of the book are titled "The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean", "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue", and "The Harmony of the World", followed by a chapter on "Heaven and Hell". There are many other books about ancient history, or about different cultures, that will include some information about what role astronomy and astrology has played in different contexts. Cs32en   Talk to me  21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that matters. The important point is that Sagan's book is not about astrology.  With 9/11 conspiracy theories, the only sources we find about this topic are about conspiracy theories.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is obviously not true (see the reference to the book on popular culture above). Cs32en   Talk to me  22:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read that book, but it looks like it only explains 9/11 from the context of its influence in popular culture. It might create a connection between 9/11 conspiracy theories and popular culture but this isn't the popular culture article, and even if it were, I would think that other topics such as music, films, sports, etc.  are more worthy of mention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re my earlier comment: the Warren Report contains an entire appendix discussing "speculation and rumors," including conspiracy theories. See Appendix 12. That is the kind of serious and prominent discussion that is needed. Books on the Kennedy conspiracies don't fit the bill. Similar sourcing is needed for this article. I'm not seeing much of an attempt made to make us aware of such sources by the people advocating inclusion of this material. And no, a NIST report or magazine article debunking conspiracy theories wouldn't satisfy the criteria. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's been no attaempt at all to satisfy ONEWAY. The only examples we get are pop culture and poll stuff. The justification for the sections removal is getting stronger...RxS (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I see ONEWAY in this discussion as little more than gaming the system but I accept that some editors don’t understand it or misinterpret it’s intent. However, the following quotes I post are from the pages of a book I found on how the media reported the attacks. The book is not about conspiracy theories; it merely connects them to 911 in a "serious and prominent" way. We can put ONEWAY to bed and move on. This chapter blames the theories existence on newspapers inadequate reporting, giving CNN, Washington post and NYT as examples. Page 6: "There are various conspiracy theories around focusing on the demise of flight 93, to be found most particularly on Internet websites. Some theories are too extreme for credibility, and some are quite credible whether correct or not." Page 7: "In noting such ambiguous news releases and updates, the discrepancies of the press during and after September 11 emerge. Certainly the press are far from infallible, but it is largely a result of such misleading press commentary that the recent abundance of conspiracy theories has emerged." This page is referring to the release of videotape that the media falsely reported were Palestinians cheering when they are told of the attacks. It was later revealed that the tapes were actually of Palestinians cheering when told that Iraq was withdrawing from Kuwait in 1991. Page 33: "It was largely this kind of murky activity that began to contribute to conspiracy debate surrounding 911." Page 49 discusses the shoot down order for flight 93. It notes that some media accepted the possibility but that as soon as the passenger takeover became known the media dropped the issue and never followed it up. Then it cites Jane's Intelligence Review reporting that it was possible the plane had been shot down after the passengers took control and that there is no likelyhood that we will ever know for sure. This was then noted as why it was part of The Meyssen Conspiracy. Page 51: "Many of the earlier reports describe hearing the high pitched screech of a fighter plane, and perhaps more significantly air-traffic controllers suggested that the tight turns and movements performed by the plane (flight 77) would be much more likely seen in the trajectory of a military jet than a Boeing 757. Such anomalies provide ample feeding for a hungry conspiracy theorists, and do point out several weaknesses in the version of events given by the US Department of Defense." Page 60: "Perhaps the media may also start to make a distinction between an intelligence failure and a failure to act, the distinction being rather important. Theorising upon the September 11 attacks is not limited to the media or so called conspiracy mongers; many states themselves suggested several underhand possibilities." Wayne (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Grahame Warby, Martin Cunningham September 11 2001: kindling the debate Media Creations 2004 ISBN 1595262601


 * Are you sure that's a reliable source? The publisher appears to be Media Creations.  If you click on "Publish a book" it takes you to Llumina Press which is a self-publishing service (although they claim not to be.). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so; by definition a self-published book is about as reliable a source as a blog. Half  Shadow  21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not reliable as a source if it is self published. ONE minor example would hard put ONEWAY "to bed" anyway. Basically, the professionals simply don't waste their time with 9/11 conspiracy theories because they are so preposterous.--MONGO 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Amazon listing gives the publisher as Llumina Press, a self-publishing house. The case for ONEWAY justifying removal of the section is getting stronger the longer this discussion drags on. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for Pete's sake, the idea that WP:ONEWAY should completely eliminate 9/11 conspiracy theories from the article is preposterous. Just as you can't discuss JFK w/o conspiracy theories, it's hard to comprehensively cover a topic like 9/11 w/o mentioning a movement that has been active since the event took place, claims millions of adherents around the globe, and has successfully crossed over into mainstream culture. Comparing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to Flat-Earthers is dishonest in terms of scope, no one from Popular Mechanics or NIST feel the need to refute theories about the Earth's shape. The fact that they do shows how prominent the theories have become. Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know if they feel a need to refute 9/11 conspiracy theories, it seems more like they enjoy doing it because they are so easy to refute. My overall impression is the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are dying off and the interest level simply isn't there anymore...doubt the percentage of native English speakers that believe in 9/11 CTs is rising. I can easily discuss JFK without any discussion as to whether there was a lone gunman or not. No, the ONEWAY argument isn't the only one...how about the fact that idiotic CTs surrounding 9/11 aren't worth mentioning since they are idiotic?--MONGO 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least pretend to be neutral MONGO. After all, NPOV is the entire arguement for keeping or rejecting the section. Even the 911 commission concluded that some of the minor conspiracy theories were true. If the CTs are dying off, it is still not relevant not to mention that deletion of the section is guaranteed to spur new interest in CTs which negates your arguement. BTW "idiotic" is not a criteria for deletion......or Bush jr wouldn't have a page lol.Wayne (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Heres a few more books. Lets drop ONEWAY and move on please. We currently sit on seven for keep and three for delete. Amy M. Damico, Sara E. Quay September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide ABC-CLIO 2010 ISBN 0313355053 Thomas Meyer Reality, truth and evil: facts, questions and perspectives on September 11, 2001 Temple Lodge Publishing 2005 ISBN 190263666X Eric D. Williams The Puzzle of 911: An Investigation Into the Events of September 11, 2001 and Why the Pieces Don't Fit Together Lulu 2004 ISBN 1419600338Wayne (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This book is not about popular culture in the Wikipedia policy sense but is about how the media reported and reacted to the events, much as the previous book I posted did. It blames conspiracy theories on the inadequacies of reporting as the other did.
 * This book discusses events leading up to and government policies following 911. Connects CTs to the political culture prior to 911, specifically blaming politicians for their existence. Mention of CTs is primarily around how CTs originated and are being kept alive by the POV pushing of those who support the original government version 100% including elements of the government version since debunked, ie the claim that the attacks came as a surprise etc.
 * Despite the title, this book doesn't deal with conspiracy theories. The book details the events and failures of 911 with only nine scattered pages explaining CTs in a NPOV way and later mentioning that all credible CTs need to be included in any new investigation to exclude them.
 * If your basic math is as bad as your argument for why ONEWAY (and many other reasons) doesn't count here then you need to get an education. I see 10 for keeping and 8 for deleting...you need to learn how to count. I used google reader to skim through the 2nd and third books mentioned above and these books are conspiracy theory based books about what happened...the more books you put up that are written in such a way, the lousier your argument becomes, so thanks for showing your ignorance.--MONGO 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's not a vote Mongo. WP:ONEWAY is not applicable in the situation, as anyone who covers the topic in a meaningful way would be at a loss to explain how to exclude the 9/11 Truth movement. Honestly, you act as if this were three people sitting in a basement coming up with the wildest shit they can think of. I agree and hold contempt for them as you do, but you can't cover 9/11 w/o mentioning them. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not a vote, which is why ONEWAY needs to be addressed. So far its requirements have not been satisfied. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't need to be addressed, you cannot cover 9/11 w/o at least MENTIONING the truth movement. WP:ONEWAY refers to THEORIES. Even if you ignore all the THEORIES of truthers, you can't ignore the existence of the MOVEMENT ITSELF or the PEOPLE involved. Your not emphasizing theories so much as that a substantial number of people believe the theories and there was a large movement that believed that 9/11 was committed by the US gov't/Israel/Businessmen/aliens/moon bears/sentient moss. Soxwon (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy theorists oftentimes do come up with the "wildest shit" they can think of. And you're dead wrong that we have to mention the 9/11 conspiracy theorists...we don't have to mention them at all...giving them any credit in an article that is supposed to be dedicated to the known evidence is like a physical anthropology book discussing Bigfoot....which they don't do!--MONGO 18:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's a horrible analogy. This is NOT a scientific article, it's a historical one. Therefore WP:ONEWAY doesn't apply, we're not talking about science where biology rejects intelligent design, we're talking history where the debate b/w evolution and creationism is mentioned. Soxwon (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Human evolution does not mention creationism, creationists or similar...that article is the "Parent" article for related subarticles...this article is the parent of related subarticles...but in an effort to show compromise, I am willing to keep the CT section if we also mention and cite that some of the CTers like to wear Tin foil hats.--MONGO 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Correct, that is a scientific article on the subject, but take for instance a historic aritcle on the subject: . There creationists get a brief mention as they had a deep impact from a cultural and historic standpoint, which would apply to truthers. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ONEWAY is not restricted to scientific theories or subjects, so that's a red herring. Soxswon, I came into this convinced that the section belonged there, but I gradually began to see the merit of exclusion primarily on the basis of ONEWAY. I think we need to keep an open mind on these kinds of situations. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that means that the Anthropology analogy and all such arguments are also Red Herrings. I'm merely pointing out that, from a cultural and historic standpoint, Truthers ARE signficant, and therefore, relevant to the subject of 9/11. I completely understand that mentioning them feels like giving loons WP:UNDUE weight, but unfortunately, that's the way it goes. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess I can sum up my position as this: If this were a scientific article, then yes, the junk science of the 9/11 movement would be easily dismissed from the article. However, since this article is also responsible for covering the cultural and historic aspects of 9/11, it would be irresponsible and dishonest to simply ignore a movement that has been covered by multiple RS's, has demonstrated cultural significance, and has millions of members as proven by multiple polls. The fact is, at one time, more than 10 percent of American's did not believe the truth, and hundreds of millions around the globe agreed. You can't simply brush them aside and/or ignore their easily verified existence. I would advocate WP:COMMONSENSE. Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article were something like Public reaction to the September 11 attacks I'd see your point. But I think we need to be more rigorous in an article on the attacks themselves. That's where my commonsense takes me. By the way, I see that link goes to an essay on the theme of ignoring all rules. I think we need to heed the rules in this case. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm not saying we should have a lengthy section, or even a full section. I'm saying that eliminating it entirely is not acceptable. I would expect a "Public reaction" article would simply give a more in-depth look, rather than a brief mention. Again, you can't simply ignore the people's existence when it is so easily verified no matter how crazy or disgusting they are. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's an all or nothing proposition. But the arguments for inclusion are so weak that I'm having trouble finding justification for any mention at this time. The RS sources being cited in justification of inclusion, purported to deal with the fringe theories in a serious and prominent way, are of such poor quality that my eyes just glaze over. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Soxwon: No one's denying that 9/11 conspiracy theories are one of the more popular conspiracy theories around. But Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference work.  I don't think that a serious article about 9/11 would also include a section about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I've examined numerous sources about 9/11 and they don't even mention it.  I also checked Encyclopedia Britannica and they don't mention it either.  AFAIK, the only source that also explains conspiracy theories in the context of 9/11 is Wikipedia.  Something is wrong with this picture.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 700 words in the EB article, several of the sections of the article by themselves are that long. By your logic, everything but the introduction should be eliminated, as it by itself is 500 words. Your argument, therefore, is invalid unless you are serious about chopping off the vast majority of the article. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Soxwon: OK, fine. Here's another example.  The 9/11 Commission Report is over 500 pages long, and it doesn't contain a single mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a red herring. The 911 commission left mention (and claims) of conspiracy theories to public statements they made later. Exclusion of the existence of conspiracy theories from any serious work is a SOP because they would have to research them if included and few authors are willing to expend the time or expense. The author of the book I quoted that had only 9 out of 500 pages mentioning them specifically said in his book that he could not expand on the CTs or comment on their validity because he didn't want to research the subject. This is one reason why it is inappropriate the way ONEWAY is being used here, even if we ignore that no one seems to understand what the policy actually means or intends and is misinterpreting it to support their own view. Wayne (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pure speculation, and your premise is simply not true. The Warren Report, as I previously mentioned, included an appendix discussing the fringe theories then circulating on the Kennedy assassination. If any serious, reputable RS source on the 911 attacks contains a discussion of the conspiracy theories, the burden satisfied by ONEWAY is lifted. Evidently no such sources exist. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - A new user just reworded the entire section and I would question its neutrality.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted, not a fan of that wording. Also Mongo, perhaps we could reach some sort of compromise Soxwon (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My compromise is that I don't go around and nominate for deletion all the perpheral 9/11 CT promotional articles, written by truthers, but instead concentrate on trying to just have this ONE maintain some semblence of focus based on the known facts.--MONGO 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a generous offer, given that the alternative approach that you have indicated has already been tried in the past. Cs32en   Talk to me  07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of that wording either. WP:UNDUE weight for the TM in this article, as not all conspiritalists are Truthers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- I must be the new user that reworded the section. I didn't reword the entire section, mainly focusing on adding some important points that were missing, such as the emphasis on Tower 7's destruction by the denialists and the omission of that event from the 9/11 Commission Report. I agree that labeling the entire section concerning dissenting views as 9/11 Truth Movement may be overly inclusive, as not all conspiracists may be truthers, but it is a far more egregious generalization to label the truthers as conspiracists, as many of them make no positive claims as to the events of 9/11 nor the motivations behind it. I understand my wording isn't attracting many fans thus far. I don't mind the wording being revised, but I would like to see the content I tried to include be added to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1a (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a plethora of other articles dedicated to explaining most of the preposterous conjectures by denialists/truthers/and others. What these various people "think" really doesn't matter since we have known facts to rely on for this article.--MONGO 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets have a look at this in the perspective of a similar dispute. In Australia there are only three prominent people who aggresively dispute that colonists killed Aborigines in any significant numbers. These three are seen by the scientific community here pretty much as truthers are seen in the US and are commonly refered to here as denialists. One is historian Keith Windschuttle, one is archaeologist Josephine Flood and one is journalist Rod Moran. Support for the denialist view is so small that there is no equivalent of the 911 Conspiracy Theories article covering the issue but occasionally we get POV pushing denialists trying to edit the historical articles to make Windschuttle the primary authority which is sort of similar to some problems here. However, when you go to almost any Australian historical Indigenous article such as Tasmanian Aborigines or List of massacres of Indigenous Australians the denialist view is included citing those three extensively. I believe it is often given undue weight but it is still included and I would never argue to have the view completely removed. Despite the number dropping, even today 30% of Americans still believe in 911 conspiracy theories and the percentage is much higher in other developed countries where the percentage is actually increasing rather than decreasing. What is so special about September 11 attacks that a very significant minority view is not even allowed to be acknowledged as existing? Wayne (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If pressed, I doubt that the 30% of Americans actually truly do "believe" the "official story' is bogus...same or higher percentages of Americans believe the myths about Bigfoot, UFO's, JFK etc. Thats too bad that in other parts of the world the 9/11 CTs believers are increasing...sounds like the USA is more unpopular than I thought, and/or urban myths take precedent over facts in those locales...thats a shame.--MONGO 07:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP Trying to blot out history -- which is what the CTs are -- only makes wikipedia look even more Orwellian then it does already. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Removal It has it's own article, it doesn't need to be here. --Tarage (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Mark Baildon, James S. Damico Social Studies as New Literacies in a Global Society Routledge Research in Education Taylor & Francis, 2010 Page 93 - 103 ISBN 0415873673
 * Actually, the fact that its notable enough for its own breakout article suggests that it deserves a small mention. Soxwon (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Popular Mechanics discusses conspiracy theories, so if it is considered a RS then their debunking article irrefutably connects the two topics as required by ONEWAY.Wayne (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This book also connects them. As it is a 9th grade Humanities textbook it is definitely a RS.
 * Small mention is a link. Nothing more. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is 10 pages dedicated to discussing 911 conspiracy theories a "small mention"? Does the policy require a minimum word count now? Raising the bar every time you cant counter support for inclusion is not GF. Wayne (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you and your ilk are loud, does not mean you are important. It HAS an article. A link is fine. --Tarage (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A link and separate section would be acceptable to me, but what's there is not excessive. Removing it entirely from the body is inappropriate.  (As is the application of WP:ONEWAY by some of the people advocating removals.)  In case anyone is wondering where I'm coming from, I quite agree the conspiracy theories are absurd, but they are notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess we have to agree to disagree. I didn't think it had much of a shot anyway, but I wanted to put in my vote. --Tarage (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Arthur: One of things I like to do when deciding these types of content issues is to perform the following thought experiment. If BBC News or the History Channel was going to produce a documentary on 9/11, would they include an explanation of 9/11 CT?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They'd probably mention it which is all that is being suggested. Soxwon (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The History Channel would probably concentrate on the conspiracy theories, if it comes to that. Just look at their Crystal skull program.  However, we all agree that even the BBC would give it a brief mention, which is all we're doing here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I sincerely doubt that the BBC would mention it at all. Tell you what, when September 11th rolls around later this year, how about watching one of the documentaries that will inevitably be broadcast?  If, as I suggest, they don't mention CT, let's remove it from the article.  Is that fair enough? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep as written. WP:ONEWAY is quite clear, and IMO it applies here. Since the various conspiracy theories already have their own articles, I think limiting their inclusion in this article is appropriate. Provide a precis of the specific theory article and a link; those who are interested can follow the link, which (again, IMO) is the entire theoretical basis of the World Wide Web. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support removal The WP:ONEWAY arguments calling for RS that "connect the topics in a serious and prominent way" make a lot of sense to me. I've never seen a RS (that is not about CTs)that mentions the 911 CTs in a serious and prominent way. Quite the contrary, CTs have always been treated as non-credible, if not outright loony in my experience - in non-CT and CT pieces alike. I'd like to see one (non-CT RS) that doesn't, but lacking any provided by those who support keeping the section only hurts their position, and gives WP:ONEWAY more weight. I also think WP:PARITY might also apply to this situation - "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review." However, I do think one sentence referring to the existence of CTs, along with a "see also" note pointed at the main 911 CT article seems appropriate. Even the FA article for Earth has one sentence about "flat-earthers" in it.Shirtwaist (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)