Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 57

Legacy
I've been occasionally glancing at the discussions here and at the GA review. I agree that at this article point the article is not comprehensive, but I think that goes beyond whether or not to include the conspiracy theories. What I see as a huge gap is the lack of a "legacy" section in the article. You've got the effect section and quite a bit of text about the memorials and the rebuilding, but there seems to be a lot more that isn't covered.

As an example, see Battle of the Alamo, which like this covers a specific event. There's a paragraph devoted to how this battle impacted the rest of the war and an entire section on how the battle has been perceived since then. It even includes coverage of music and movies inspired by the battle. There is a bigger article, Legacy of the Battle of the Alamo to flesh out the details more.

In this particular article, it would be fairly easy to wrap a sentence or two on nutjobs who spout conspiracy theories into a broader coverage of how the public and various world governments have responded to the event. I'd move the "Government policies toward terrorism" subsection into the Legacy section. And yes, that would include using terror attacks as justification for torture, psychological effects on the nation (am I right in recalling that there were studies about the effects of seeing some of this on tv repeatedly?), impacts on music, movies, tv shows, etc. It puts the event into a broader historical perspective. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's a big change, draft something here for comment. If it's a matter of adding a paragraph and moving some bits around, just do it. If people don't like it they'll change it. I have to note that the recent RfC found a consensus for linking 9/11 conspiracy theories in See also and not otherwise mentioning them, so I hope you'll abide by that. Tom Harrison Talk 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Let me say instead that there's no consensus now for anything more than a see-also link to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and a consensus for anything else about CTs should be in place before anyone adds the sentence or two you mention. Tom Harrison Talk 00:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At least there's now some movement in the right direction. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the sources, Tom. I know there has been at least one book written on 9/11 in popular culture - that would likely be a good starting point. Karanacs (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interlibrary loan is a great resource. A Quest for Knowledge has a book page here. Tom Harrison Talk 02:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I love ILL. I am not going to be adding content to this article, as I'm hip-deep in my own projects, but as MONGO asked quite vociferously for guidance after the FAC was archived I thought suggestions would be welcome. Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be tightened and have the SCOPE narrowed, not the opposite...in jive with the title...September 11 attacks...who, what, when, where, why. I don't know why we should expand beyond what the title of the article suggests...if we narrowed the SCOPE then the remaining sections could be expanded in detail, providing a more encyclopedic narrative and we would still meet summary style guidelines by providing embedded and or sectionalized see also links to daughter articles. I don't know how much detail (if any) about the Afghan or Iraq Wars have to do with this excepting a short summary that the Afghan War was a consequence of 9/11. There are other sections that could be eliminated since they seem to exceed the SCOPE of the article title.--MONGO 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MONGO, I think the biggest issue here is that there is a difference in what people think the scope should be. One could argue that Battle of the Alamo should focus only on the events of March 6, 1836.  That article (a relatively recent FA)doesn't do that because there has been so much else written about the battle and its legacy.  In my opinion, this article needs to at least touch on the major themes covered in reliable sources, and that includes events that occurred after the attacks but that were heavily influenced by them.  I think it goes back to the sourcing - if more books were consulted, if more third-party sources were used to analyze some of the primary sources (the commission reports), then I suspect the balance of the article would be different.  Instead, there's an overreliance on newspaper articles that provide an overview of what happened without necessarily putting it into context.  This leads to cherrypicking - "I think that this set of articles shouldn't be covered so we'll ignore them" - which leads to an imbalanced article.  Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Analyzing the 29 book/journal sources pulled into the Sources section:
 * 10 are primary sources (reports of the commission)
 * 4 focus on Osama bin Laden (1 is essentially a primary source - bin Laden's writings)
 * 5 focus on Al Qaeda (1 is essentially a primary source - collection of Al Qaeda writings)
 * 3 focus on the planning of the attacks
 * 1 focuses on disaster preparation
 * 2 focus on the US govt
 * 1 is on terrorism in general
 * 3 are focused on the attacks themselves
 * Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a google search as a sanity check to see what's actually out there. Here's a sampling of books that deal with the 9/11 legacy in various ways. I have not read any of these books; some may be bad sources, some may have only minimal information, and much of this is too detailed for this article. However, the list shows just how much is missing from even being mentioned in this article - global impacts, psychological impacts, cultural impacts, etc.
 * Anthony DePalma, "City of Dust: illness, arrogance, and 9/11"

So much has been written about this topic. It needs to be given a little more weight in this article. Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC) More: I've also seen multiple books that talk a lot more about the background of the attacks which delve into US policies, not just info about Al Qaeda and the attackers. That is not addressed in this article at all. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neil Smelser et al, "Discouraging terrorism: some implications of 9/11"
 * James R. Siklenat and Mark R Shulman "The imperial presidency and the consequences of 9/11"
 * Matthew J. Morgan, "The impact of 9/11 on pscyhology and eduation"
 * "The impact of 9/11 on the media, arts, and entertainment"
 * Thomas A. Pyszczynski et al "In the wake of 9/11: the psychology of terror"
 * "The impact of 9/11 on business and economics"
 * "The impact of 9/11 on politics and war"
 * "The impact of 9/11 and the new legal landscape"
 * Nancy Foner, "Wounded city: the social impact of 9/11"
 * "The impact of 9/11 on religion and philosophy"
 * "The impact of 9/11 on European foreign and security policy"
 * Steven Glovernman, "The impacts of 9/11 on Canada-US trade"
 * Edward Yourdon, "Byte Wars: the impact of September 11 on information technology"
 * Yuval Neria, "9/11: mental health int he wake of terrorist attacks"
 * James Harf, "The unfolding legacy of 9/11"
 * Marika Vicziany, "Regional security in the Asia Pacific: 9/11 and after"
 * "The impact of 9/11 on Corporate America"
 * Michael Assad, "Global sourcing and purchasing post 9/11"
 * Malinda Smith, "Securing Africa: post 9/11 discourses on terrorism"
 * Ben Sheppard, "The psychology of strategic terrorism: public and government responses to attack"
 * William F. Schulz, "Tainted legacy: 9/11 and the ruin of human rights",
 * Jeff Birkenstein, "Reframing 9/11: film, popular culture, and the "war on terror"
 * Jeff Melnick, "9/11 culture: America under construction"
 * David Simpson, "9/11: the culture of commemoration"
 * Norman K. Denzin, "9-11 in American culture"
 * Sara E Quay, "September 11 in popular culture: a guide",
 * Mary L. Dudziak, "September 11 in history: a watershed moment?"
 * Barbie Zelizer, "Journalism after September 11"
 * David Lyon, "Surveillance after September 11"
 * Tom Rockmore, "The philosophical challenge of September 11"
 * Steven Chermak, "Media representations of September 11",
 * Paul Eden, "September 11, 2001: A turning point in international and domestic law?"
 * Bruce Lincoln, "Holy terrors: thinking about religion after september 11"
 * Michael Parenti, "The terrorism trap: September 11 and beyond"
 * Kent Roach, "The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism" (Cambridge University Press)


 * This article isn't 'legacy of 9/11', it is 'September 11 attacks' - the point of this article is to summarize the attacks, not their impact or some random conspiracy theory somebody is pushing. Those sources are more than enough to start a Legacy of the September 11 attacks article, but they have zero worth to this page.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Legacy of the September 11 attacks needs to be written, and yes, as I acknowledged initially, much of this information may be too detailed for this particular article. The list of sources shows, however, that there is a great deal of information about the attacks that has not been summarized here.  The legacy of the attacks is absolutely relevant and this article is not comprehensive without a good summary of it.  One cannot have a full view of what happened without knowing the consequences.  What is the place of these attacks in history?  It's why this article already includes some of the legacy - in a section called "Long-term effects".  But that long-term effects section is not a comprehensive summary - it is narrowly focused on NYC and ignores many of the other topics that have been studied/written about. Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

First, this is all acedemic unless someone is actually going to write something in article space. But, I think it could improve the article to make the Long-term effects secton shorter and more general, based partly on some of the sources Karanacs lists. It's important, though, that the article stays within its natural scope. This page is about the attacks. It's appropriate we summarize the consequences and link to other articles, but September 11 attacks can't be a fork of War on terror, where a lot of the "consequences of 9/11" would fit more naturally. Tom Harrison Talk 15:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point, Tom, that there needs to be differentiation between September 11 attacks and War on terror. I'd be curious to see how or if the sources draw the line. Sorry to throw so much down without stepping in to do the work, but MONGO did ask for improvement suggestions :) Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ten years after the events, it is both possible and necessary to shift the perspective from a mere account of the physical sequence events of that day towards a historical account. Thus, an article that relates the attacks into their historical context should actually be the main article, and the description of the "physical" event itself should be a sub-article. For practical reasons, I would suggest, however, to spin off any detailed descriptions of the event itself to a sub-article, while transforming this article into a historical account. Cs32en  Talk to me  18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that some aspects of the legacy and aftermath of 9/11 could use more coverage, but the idea that we should compensate by removing the description of the events of 9/11 is ridiculous. All articles about significant events, whether historical or not, have such descriptions of the events. They are the most significant aspect of 9/11 and one that the majority of our readers want to see. Hut 8.5 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comment above that some (not all) details may need to be spun off - and not necessarily only in the description of the attacks. For Battle of the Alamo, I spun off almost two weeks worth of events - about which thousands of pages have been written in scholarly works - into a daughter article Siege of the Alamo and left a single-section summary.  I didn't want to do it because that was info that I was taught in school and very, very familiar with, but it was required to ensure the parent article could be fully comprehensive and at a level that made sense for readers not already indoctrinated in Texas history.  This article is the parent article for a whole host of children, as noted in the template.  Each and every one of those children (and some that have yet to be written) needs to be summarized in some way in this article or it is not comprehensive (or the children shouldn't exist). Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward after "good article reassessment"

 * Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2

SO shall we see if we can move forward on issued raised at the GA review. I understand there are some apposing views on this so shall we break it down a bit. I believe The perfect article and its related essay  Writing better articles can help. Moxy (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. See also WP:AUDIENCE
 * Does this "parent/over view"  article help our readers understand and navigate "all aspects" of the topic without having to search for related pages?


 * 1) Acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
 * What is missing if anything? Mention of CT's? anything else?


 * 1) Is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favouring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
 * What is considered a lower priority for CT's and how can out readers learn more about them in there context and come to there own conclusions?


 * 1) Reflects expert knowledge; it is grounded in fact and on sound scholarly and logical principles.
 * If the answers is yes (this seem to be the outcome of the GA review) - what is the criteria that must be reached to be considered a  reliable source in the case of CT's if we preceded in this way.
 * Moxy...the last Rfa was just for a link to the CT article in the See Also section, not for an expansion in the body of the article.--MONGO 02:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we all know that - I am talking about the "main" issue raised at the GA review as indicated by this sections title. We may not get far on this, but its best to try then to never get the GA level.Moxy (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the GA is less improtant than basing the article on the best referencing. We can't reference the CT's except to say they are a cultural phenomenon...no reliable references exist to support the claims made by the CTers...so IF there was a mention at all, all we could say is they exist and tie them into a Legacy part of the article...as part of a cultural response.--MONGO 03:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs...here is my suggestion for organization...


 * Introduction (eliminate cited refs..roll into body of article)
 * Attacks
 * Events (of the day)
 * Casualties (of the day and the subsequent related deaths)
 * Damage (and Collapse of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 and surrounding strutures as well as at the Pentagon)
 * Rescue and recovery efforts (and discussion on cleanup, primarily in NYC)
 * Planning of the Attacks (roll KSM and other planners into the section lead)
 * FBI investigation
 * 9/11 Commission
 * Attackers
 * Motives
 * Response (led to the "War on terror")
 * Military operations
 * Hate crimes
 * International response
 * Legacy
 * Economic/Health/Legal/Cultural...(this need only be a 2-3 paragraph section honestly)
 * Memorials (mandatory)

Completely resource and rewrite all sections...utilize books over news reports as often as possible...increase use of secondary sources as much as possible.--MONGO 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the details of these re-org proposals, but in general, I think that there's value is covering the background in the body before that attacks. I believe that our World War 2 article is structured that way.  I also believe that there's value in rewriting the article and using better sourcing.  The problem - from a personal perspective - is that I don't feel like my knowledge is in-depth enough to do the topic justice in terms of getting the article to FA status.  I feel that I need to read a few books on the subject first, and that could take months.  I will probably work on the daughter articles while I work my way through the books.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more important to keep the event details near at the beginning of the article...that way the event is clearly discussed firsthand and the who did it, how they planned it, and why they did it and the cascade of events afterwards form a better chronological order.--MONGO 10:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So we can all agree on the fact there are reliable references that exist that mention the cultural phenomenons of the CT's. I also see no need to go into any details about any of the CT's except to acknowledge that CT's as a whole do exist. Details about any specifics are not needed as they can been seen in the main article(s). As  for reliable sources those in the  "Sources" and "Further reading" section should be used to remove most of the news ones for facts. Most of this are now linked and can been see by most readers.  Moxy (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why anyone would be constantly wishing to have first a link, then a sentence or two and finally probably a whole section discussing the CT's...what is the motivation for such a push?--MONGO 10:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove primary sources, organize article, and mention alternative theories. Then we just have to get a stable version. There's plenty of material here to make this a FA again...too much in fact. The difficult part will be covering everything in a reasonable-length article. I believe Oklahoma City Bombing would be a good article to model this one after.  N419 BH  04:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There aren't any alternative theories...there are conspiracy theories though. Alternative theories have credibility, conspiracy theories don't. The Oklahoma City Bombing had far less reaching significance, espcially on a worldwide scale.--MONGO 10:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the term 'alternative theory' is misleading and is a weasel term. They are not 'alternative' theories (for that would imply they have some standing), they are unfounded, illogical, absurd, ridiculous conspiracy theories. The idea that a missile hit the Pentagon or that someone could smuggle massive and powerful explosives into not one, but TWO 110-story office buildings as well as WTC7 is not 'alternative', it is insane.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  12:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This will hopefully be my last post for a bit. I need to get some stuff done in RL.  But I think a sentence or a phrase about CT could work if done right.  I suggested this a few weeks/months during one of the previous discussions but the idea didn't seem to attract much support.  The problem is getting that sentence/phrase done right.  If you go through the archives, I wrote a rough draft in the context of 9/11's influence on culture.  But perhaps it can be reframed in terms of overall legacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Aude's outline looks good, but I'd summarize the events of the day before getting into al-Qaida's planning. The article should focus on the attacks. The conspiracy theories are peripheral. If there's going to be more than a see-also link, there will need to be a consensus for that. Since we just discussed that after just discussing that, we might do better to leave it alone for a while, and have no more than the see-also link for now. Tom Harrison Talk 11:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)One final thought: there are two general ways to integrate CT into the text of the article:
 * As a legitimate, alternate explanation of 9/11. But I'm not aware of a single historian who advocates this POV, let along a significant minority.  This is DOA and is extremely unlikely to gain consensus.
 * A brief mention as a part of the legacy of 9/11. I'm open to this and I think it has a chance to gain consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Outline
I actually did make an outline : User:Aude/Sept11-outline separate from the other link. It goes in roughly chronological order. I realize the reasons for summarizing the events of the day first, but think that can be done adequately in the lead section. And then suggest going in chronological order:

Thoughts, suggestions, improvements or is the above totally offbase? and other ideas? Cheers. --Aude (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aude, I like this. I think what MONGO was asking for "the event is clearly discussed firsthand and the who did it, how they planned it, and why they did it and the cascade of events afterwards" might be best for the lead, which will provide the basic introduction to the reader.  Then, I think we need to start with the planning and go more in chronological order to fill in the gaps. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aude has brought several 9/11 related articles to featured level...so I'd have to bow to her advice here...MONGO 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion. As long as CTs aren't mentioned in the lede and are, if noted at all in the article, thoroughly debunked and discredited, I'm down with this plan.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Aude's outline just above, with the lead describing the attacks then summarizing the article, sounds fine to me. I look forward to seeing it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing I'm not sure is in the right place is the "Reactions" section. Some or all of that might be better if incorporated into the response and aftermath sections. I'm not totally sure how that would work yet. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I think "government impact" (e.g. establishing the Department of Homeland Security) and "cultural impact" are missing. I've tweaked the outline and added another proposal. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I might put cultural impact after government response, so TSA and Patriot Act can lead into effects on travel and other social/cultural effects. When it comes to cultural and social impact, we'll have to be careful not to conflate results of the attack itself, with results of the government's response. A consequence of the Patriot Act isn't a consequence of 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 00:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked proposed outline #2 per your suggestions. I had "TSA, Patriot Act ... as a separate item number but didn't intend it as a totally separate section. Rather, when thinking "government response" (not consequence) I think of these changes and legislation enacted in reaction to security concerns and/or fears and/or investigation findings of security shortcomings. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Would Health effects be better in Collapse of the World Trade Center instead of here? Tom Harrison Talk 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Health effects section is of appropriate length and detail as it stands, and I would prefer to see it retained (it's a very significant issue associated with 9/11). But if any or all of this section were moved, I would think it more appropriate to move it to Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks rather than Collapse of the World Trade Center.  I would prefer to see Collapse of the World Trade Center keep its focus on the physics of the collapses.  Wildbear (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What I was wondering is, what is the best parent article for Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks? Since it doesn't seem to involve the Pentagon or Shanksville, and since the illnesses are consequences of the collapse of the towers rather than of the attacks themselves, Collapse of the WTC might be the better parent article. In fact I think whatever we do here, the section of health effects at Collapse of the WTC should be at least as detailed as what we have here. Tom Harrison Talk 01:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think World Trade Center site, Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks, and/or Collapse of the World Trade Center would be the main parent articles. The health impacts were both on the rescue workers and civilians at the WTC, though the cleanup procedure causing additional health impacts. --Aude (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe pertinent parts incorporated into the casualties section. Also, I notice now that "recovery efforts" was missing from the "Rebuilding" section (outline updated again) and I think health effects might also be discussed some there. I'm not totally sure that's the best way though. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it, #2 better than #1, merging Reactions and Response. That said, however, from reading the GA Reassessment, I don't think the organization was the main issue, it doesn't even seem to be mentioned. --GRuban (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think taking a step back and considering the overall organization and structure of the article is an essential step, but only one step forward. Obviously the article needs quite a bit of re-writing, checking/updating/improving sources and summarizing of the various subtopics (along with the subtopics also being improved) yet make things comprehensive too. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The GAR closer was wrong. WP:NPOV says we need to cover majority and significant minority viewpoints.  Tiny minority opinions (such as fringe theories) don't belong in the article as if they were a legitimate scholarly viewpoint.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not cover the CTs in a separate section, but as a phenomenon in its own wright, rather than as a competing scholarly viewpoint? --Gyrobo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If its not notable enough as an alternate viewpoint on the attacks, it cannot be included in the article, plain and simple.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The veracity of the CTs don't matter; they are notable enough to merit their own article, and are clearly a phenomenon resulting from the attacks (i.e., they're part of the topic). If there was a section summarizing the CTs, their pervasiveness, their impact on society, and whether they've been debunked by experts, then the article would be comprehensive without juxtaposing CTs against every other part of the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We've just had that discussion. It's unproductive to have it again so soon. Tom Harrison Talk 00:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, then. I've been trying to follow the topic, but I must have missed some spots. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's defer exactly how to handle CT until later. Both proposal 1 and 2 look good to me. I think I prefer 2 but don't have a strong opinion yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Current events vs history
I am an American. I still pray frequently for the victims of the attacks. I can also set aside my own personal biases to ensure an NPOV article that is not intended to memorialize (see Aggie Bonfire and Donner Party, a collaboration with Malleus and Moni3). I think that the format, content weighting, and sourcing of this article was appropriate 5 years ago but not now. We've crossed from current event to history (albeit recent history), and the way those two types of topics is handled is very, very different. Now that we are 10 years out, historians, sociologists, etc are starting to provide analysis of the events that goes beyond a flat "X happened. Y Happened." timeline. I have done the bulk of my FA-writing and FA-reviewing in history articles. Much of my focus in the last few years has been articles related to war (battles, skirmishes, political conventions, soldiers, rebellions, battlesites). This is essentially an article related to war.

I agree with the comment above that the details may need to be spun off. Timeline of the September 11 attacks already exists and would be a great repository. For Battle of the Alamo, I spun off almost two weeks worth of events - about which thousands of pages have been written in scholarly works - into a daughter article Siege of the Alamo. I didn't want to do it because that was info that I was taught in school and very, very familiar with, but it was required to ensure the parent article could be fully comprehensive and at a level that made sense for readers not already indoctrinated in Texas history. This article is the parent article for a whole host of children, as noted in the template. Each and every one of those children (and some that have yet to be written) needs to be summarized in some way in this article or it is not comprehensive (or the children shouldn't exist). Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very reasonable approach to me. This is an historical event, and history can only be understood in context. lots of context.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an American, so I have a different view. The suggestion I've seen made that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Try looking for it, as I would have to do but don't have the energy for. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to make a ridiculous claim like that, please back it up with proof.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did look, I didn't see it. Even if somone did say this, this is Wikipedia.  People say crazy things here all the time.  It would never gain consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough with the insults. If I find the diff what will you give me? Even more abuse, or a big kiss? Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How am I insulting you? I asked you for proof and you have yet to give any. That's not insulting.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're calling me a liar. Not a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making an inflammatory accusation and then are getting insulted when people can't find it and request proof of it, so far as to make a minor threat. Looks to me like you are looking for a fight. Perhaps you should cool your head. --Tarage (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on a user talkpage and it's really fairly clear that only Americans should be editing the this page. As an American, I was embarrassed to read it. We should be better than that. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should examine your conscience, if you have one. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I haven't been editing this article for a while, and now I see why.  If I weren't involved, your last few statements would result in an immediate block for WP:NPA, and a request at WP:AN for a permanent ban.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just try it, and see where you end up. I doubt you'll enjoy it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tone it down a notch, MF. --DHeyward (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff where MONGO says "Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans." which is likely to be what Malleus is referring to. I'll forgo any big kisses for digging out that diff, but it's a good reminder that we should all avoid stereotyping each other and making false claims about each other. --John (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a diff showing any evidence that myself or anyone else claimed only Americans should edit this article. It's merely a comment stating what I find to be an alarming trend...and if indeed it is true, it wouldn't be the first time to draw such a conclusion.--MONGO 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In kind, please explain this (there are other examples) where in discussion elsewhere about this article that the article to remain a toilet patrolled by nationalists...who are the nationalists, John?--MONGO 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I have certainly learned a valuable lesson from the above, and the recently closed AN/I on one of the above editors. And that is that an editor with an extensive history of blocks resulting from personal attacks, harassment, and incivility can continue this type of behavior with impunity, safe in the knowledge that even if he's taken to AN/I, admins will just shrug it off with quips that basically amount to "C'mon guys, what's the big deal?...If you think Malleus' personal attacks were bad here, you should've seen his behavior that got him blocked the other 13 times!...now don't bother us again until Malleus does something really horrendously bad, will ya?". A valuable lesson indeed...sickening, but valuable. Shirt  waist &#9742;  13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you learn to count? Or more accurately, fail to learn to count? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? Amazing, isn't it? Shirt  waist &#9742;  23:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm sure you know hyperbole when you see it. Everyone, please talk about the article and not each other. Lady of  Shalott  07:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The article will ultimately be about what the people who contribute to it want to write about. It's a collaborative endevor, and everyone is welcome. Suggestions are welcome too. Now, articles can be renamed - this one as well as any; all it takes is consensus, like every other major change. And new articles can be written, on any topic anyone cares to write about, no consensus required. But I don't see the point of deleting the content of this article so another can be written under this title. Write Legacy of 9/11 or 9/11 and the US Presidency or 9/11 and US security policy or 9/11 and social change. Or simple start writing about whatever you want to write about, and give it a title later. Tom Harrison Talk 23:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A collaborative venture it most certainly is not, as the discussions here and elsewhere have amply demonstrated. Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While you all were joking around with each other, you lost the topic that Karanacs started off with. I think what he is saying is that this article needs to be oriented, changed if need be, to an overall summary of all the child articles that make up this topic.  I think his point is a good one. Cla68 (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we have two very good suggestions to be getting on with there. We can work backwards from the child articles or we can work forward from Karanacs' suggested outline in the section above. --John (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate that my suggested structure was just a suggestion - it may not be the best way, but may be a way forward. I'm also female, Cla :) Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the rather acrimonious GAR is out of the way perhaps others will be able to drag this article kicking and screaming into some semblance of order. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Two main comments: One idea is to see how similar articles have handled this, though it is difficult to find articles about recent (past ten years) events with ongoing consequences that have been kept properly updated as time passes. The only ones I can think of offhand are natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Terrorism articles that may provide ideas include 2002 Bali bombings, 2004 Madrid train bombings, 7 July 2005 London bombings, and 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. Though of course the September 11 attacks are different in scale and more has been written about them. Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) It should never be necessary to state on this talk page that you are American and pray for the victims.
 * (2) It should be obvious that this is now recent history and not current events. However, some of the consequences and responses are still current events, and recent history is still hard to properly encapsulate. The relative weighting of various aspects of this will change over the next ten years. This doesn't preclude writing as good an article now as is possible, but it is something to be aware of, mainly by writing the article to retain a degree of flexibility for future rewriting.
 * Why shouldn't we draw the parallels with Russian apartment bombings? --Javalenok (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica article
A couple weeks ago, I read Encyclopedia Britannica's article on 9/11 which gives a nice overview of the topic. Their article is written by Peter L. Bergen, a journalist for CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and many others. It does an excellent job in weighting content and really puts things in perspective. When I read it, some things immediately stood out. We have 7 paragraphs devoted to memorials and 1 to the invasion of Afghanistan. Also, I don't think we mention that the attacks were a tactical success but a strategic disaster for Al Qaeda. Nor do I think we mention what Al Qaeda's goal was (the withdrawal of the US from the Middle East). Then again, our article is long. Maybe it's in there somewhere but I missed it. In any case, I think that 7 paragraphs devoted to memorials and 1 devoted to the invasion of Afghanistan is the most glaring problem. Since our article is long, I think we should trim down this section or maybe remove it entirely. Or maybe summerize it somewhere else in the article in a few short sentences. I really don't have any strong opinions on how to best to address this, so I'm just throwing it out as a Trial balloon to see what other editors think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've simply belatedly recognised one of the fundamental problems with this article, which is that it's a memorial, not a dispassionate account. And didn't you initiate some kind of sanction-seeking missile against me for saying pretty much what you just said? Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Cutting down Memorials to one paragraph that can then go into Aude's outline is a good idea. I'm less sure about expanding Afghanistan beyond the decision to invade, and the initial military action. Tom Harrison Talk 02:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article places too much of an emphasis on memorializing and too little on analysis of the events and their impact. This is an understandable side effect of the sourcing - and the newspaper sources were the best that was available for a long time.  At this point, it's time to start perusing the books and see what kind of weighting the literature in general gives to the various pieces.  It's difficult to make a good judgement of "X" paragraphs/percent to this piece and "Y" paragraphs/percent to that piece without seeing how it's handled elsewhere.  Starting with other encyclopedias is a great idea. Karanacs (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tom harrison and Karanacs...but I don't agree that using other encyclopedias as a template is the way to go. Book sourcing needs to be increased as Karanacs mentions, but in terms of history, this event is still relatively recent so there is no reason to not use news sourcing if that is available. Using webbased sourcing is helpful since it allows for greater ease of source checking by all and since the cites allow for parameters which displays in the refs when the news report was made and when it was cited, it is easy to update/or remove refs if they go dead.MONGO 11:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a source is available online really shouldn't be a consideration; many of my FAs have no online sources. One can google "September 11" and find hundreds of thousands of online pages if that's what someone wants to see.  This article should use the best sources, and books, which tend to have analysis, trump newspapers 99% of the time. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I completely disagree with you and I have written some FA's too. Half the books I've seen on this event are full of opinionated editorializing and not everyone has access to a library or the time to go to one where they CAN check the refs.MONGO 15:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Things have changed quite a bit in the almost three years since you last wrote an FA. Rather few web sites would be considered high-quality reliable sources these days. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - thought you stated you were going to have no further involvement in this article? So articles that utilize web sourcing which is updated semi-annually or at least annually is less reliable (such as the plethora of U.S. Government websites) than a book written by one person and published by a book seller whose motivation may be less geared toward accuracy and more towards sales...that's idiotic...MONGO 16:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When did I last touch the article? I'm just trying (and clearly failing) to teach you something you're equally obviously not prepared to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your Shoshone National Forest FA for instance, which is suffering badly from link rot. That's the reality of online sourcing, not regular updates. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using web.archive.org on them? That should stifle much of the link rot... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to fix the links. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then do tell, what is your job? Other than pushing POV and harassing editors. --Tarage (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * US government sources are essentially primary sources for this topic. For history articles, we need the analysis.  There is definitely a risk of having articles weighted too heavily toward one pet theory, which is why these articles need to rely on LOTS of books.  Otherwise, in a topic this widely covered, it is extremely difficult to decide how much weight subtopics should garner.  Karanacs (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Karanacs:
 * I've created a list of books in we can use as potential sources:User:A Quest For Knowledge/September 11 attacks - Books. I'm not sure how to judge how high the quality of the sources are although the Looming Tower did win a Pulitzer.  If you have any insight, I'd greatly appreciate it.  BTW, Tom has a list as well: User:Tom harrison/sources.
 * I agree that sources from the US government are essentially primary sources. But I think we have to judge each one on its own merits. The 9/11 Commission Report, for example, has an excellent reputation and is one of the most frequently cited sources on this topic.  But I'm not sure how the editors at FAC judge these sort of things.
 * I would still like to get this article to GA and FA status. It will be a lot of work, but I think it can be done.  However, my strategy has shifted a bit.  Rather than work on this article, I want to read the books in my list, write articles about them, bring those articles to GA and maybe FA status.  I'm not sure if I want to do that first, or do that concurrently with this article.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus....the potential for a topic ban for you was due to your talkpage "contributions" not your editing. AQFK...the entire GA and FA process is broken...while no doubt I concur that such tagged articles should improve in quality over time, it doesn't mean the website should have to contend with the high minded pettiness and self appointed "experts" that now haunt these processes. I've looked over some FA's written by both Malleus and Karanacs and I think they suck...so what you're dealing with here is a clique that too busy patting each other on the back to be worth your bother. This article need a slow incremental improvement, not a wholescale rewrite.MONGO 18:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just quit with your bullying bluster; you're not impressing anyone, and certainly not me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think it's a bit rich that someone with your level of skill with the English language as displayed even in your posting above, never mind those ancient FAs you keep harping on about, should have the temerity to criticise the writing of others. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest's and Tom's book list are both good. I think not all books are equally reliable as sources, and we need to consider each on it's own merit.... some publishers like university presses publish more scholarly works, some authors are more highly regarded, etc.  Looming Tower is a good one. Also, there were quite a number of good, in-depth articles in The New Yorker and other such places. Here are some other sources . Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried. My experience shows that mentioning "New Pearl Harbor" "as opportunity for American Imperialism" is not allowed here despite these statements are made by the first US people in reputable sources exactly to define the historic meaning of events. --Javalenok (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because what you are trying to insert is very not NPOV. Just because something has a few reliable sources does not make it NPOV. You should know better. --Tarage (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Article structure
Has there been previous discussion on the article structure? It seems jarring to me that the attacks are described first, and then the background, planning, and motivation is the second major section. That is out of order - we are throwing readers into the middle of the event without letting them know how we got there. To me, it would make much more sense to have a layout more similar to: Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Background or Planning (Much of what is in the Attackers and their background section)
 * Motives
 * Planning of the Attacks
 * Attackers
 * Attacks
 * Events
 * Casualties
 * Damage
 * Rescue and recovery (include info about fighters scrambling)
 * Response
 * Military operations
 * Hate crimes (roll in Muslim-American reaction)
 * International response
 * Investigations
 * FBI investigation
 * 9/11 Commission
 * Collapse of the World Trade Center
 * Internal review of the CIA
 * Legacy
 * Economic
 * Health
 * Legal
 * Culture
 * etc
 * The layout was mentioned here not too long ago. Most articles about recent attacks and atrocities are laid out like this, first describing the events before going on to discuss who did it and why. It has the advantage that it fits with the typical reader's experience of events - a reader who was paying any attention to current events in 2001 will have first heard about the attacks before going on to learn about the hijackers later. Hut 8.5 15:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? That seems a little perverse. Can we have a link to the discussion, and if possible links to other articles which do it this way, please? Are any of them GA or FA standard? I agree with Karanacs that the article should have a more logical flow than it currently does. --John (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this came up a few weeks ago and there were some changes based on that. I think the way forward is incremental change - shortening and merging paragraphs, judiciously adding material, and working on daughter articles. Wholesale rewrites are unnecessary, especailly when they substantially change the focus and scope. If it's going to be a whole different article, someone can just go write a whole different article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion is here. 7 July 2005 London bombings, 2004 Madrid train bombings, Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Virginia Tech massacre are all laid out like this. Hut 8.5 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That might not be a bad idea. I have thought of preparing a sandbox version of the article which is more closely aligned with our core principles. The prospect of being insulted and ridiculed by the cohort which supports the current version has so far held me back from any such efforts. --John (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're certainly welcome to do that. If it's better it will attract consensus support. If you don't want to for whatever reason, you could take a stab at Legacy of the War on Terror. Tom Harrison Talk 16:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, we're counting on you to clean this mess up! I have no doubt your redention of the events (based on your previous suggestions) will make for a far superior article.MONGO 16:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a team effort, and will take the involvement of multiple people to clean up the mess. The more we can get content writers involved rather than "Defenders of the Wiki" the easier this will be. I view the GAR and Karanacs' suggestions here as very positive in this regard. --John (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. I don't entirely agree with Karanac's suggested structure, but it's certainly an improvement on what's there now. In particular it's very obvious to me that the background to the attacks just has to come first, else the later explanations are back-filling the story. And it certainly isn't true to say that all articles of this type are written in the way this one is, take a look at my 1996 Manchester bombing for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more...we're not going to marginalize the event itself with a slurry of POV pushing background junk. And John, you're right, we need content editors, afterall, I have never added content here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.MONGO 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MONGO, this statement really disturbs me -> "we're not going to marginalize the event itself" because it implies to me that there is an unstated goal here of presenting a non-POV article; one that offers Proper Memorialization and shows the accepted US POV. The goal should be to present a factual, non-POV article that is comprehensive and clear to the readers.  The structure of the article should have zero bearing on whether or not it is POV.  If the structure HAS to remain a certain way because of POV concerns, then I think there are much, much larger problems with the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit the nail right on the head Karanacs. This article is designed as some kind of memorial, not an encyclopedic account of the events of that day. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is worth a read on the subject. I do recognize the sensitivity of this area, especially to Americans. It would honor the dead and the living more to present an accurate and fair article than a slanted and incomplete one, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Americans for years supported terrorists in other parts of the world, including Ireland, thinking that it wouldn't affect them. Horrifying as this attack was, there's a substantial body of opinion that America got a wake-up call on 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Americans also funded and supported the organizations that later became Al Qaeda, and were happy to promulgate terrorism as long as it was embarrassing the Soviet Union. However, this is still a very sensitive area for them, as Tony Bennett recently found out. --John (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad. "Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind." Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about whether an article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may turn as many deaf ears as you like to the obvious truth that this article is a memorial, not an encyclopedic account. And until you wake up to that fact there is no point in nominating it again at either GAN or FAC. Perhaps you're happy with that state of affairs, but you ought to be embarrassed by it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Malleus, in my quick Google search I found several books that offered analysis of the background/lead-up to 9/11 that focused on US actions. That POV, and the facts that it is derived from, is given short shrift in this article Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never seen more blatant POV pushing in my life... Not only are you guys wanting to give CTs more weight, you want to add your own CT about how the US caused 9/11, blah blah blah blah... This article is about the attacks. Not the causes of 9/11, not the legacy of 9/11, not the International claims that 9/11 was caused by the US, not the Conspiracy theories related to 9/11, not the Supposed American support of foreign terrorism and how it caused 9/11... This article is about the attacks. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to add an article about those subjects, perhaps you can click on those links and begin there.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One cannot place the attacks in proper historical perspective without knowing the causes and the legacy; the article cannot be comprehensive without some discussion of these. Plenty of information has been written by scholarly sources about all of it. At the very least, the fact that there are conspiracy theories which have gotten lots of press and been debunked needs to be mentioned. 9/11 has an interesting place in American culture, and that is not shown in this article at all. Plenty of quality sources cover it. This article does not. This is the parent article for everything that's in the 9/11 template - so why is so much of that information not summarized here? Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have Motives for the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because this is about the attacks, not the CTs or anything else.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Karanacs: There is discussion of the causes and legacy in the article. Maybe it can be better written or expanded, but that will take time.  I've begun researching better sources for the article. If you would like to help, you are more than welcome.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like anyone's welcome here unless they toe the party line, so the article is doomed to be sub-par forever. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write the Very Best 9/11 Article Ever(TM) That Encompasses All Possible and Impossible Explanations, Conspiracies and Musings Imagined by Disaffected Lunatics. It should be well sourced. --DHeyward (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why russians can dedicate more than half of their September 11 article to the conspiracy theory? --Javalenok (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Russians have always been into conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you support your statement? --Javalenok (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, I do honestly believe the article can use major restructuring, but in my opinion, it's best we stick with the narrative of the attacks themselves and then dwelve into the motivations for, the investigations and other issues. By restructing, I didn't think we shouldn't explain as the first part when: on September 11th, 2001...who: al-Qaeda...what: hijacked planes, crashed them into buildings, etc....where: NYCity, VA, PA....and then get to the why and their rationale etc. I believe it's best to explain these things firsthand.--MONGO 01:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MONGO, how would you restructure it? I'm certainly not wedded to my proposal, but I think it makes more sense to an uninformed reader to provide the background first (and that's by far the most common structure for articles on historical events). Karanacs (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think that your proposal is the way to make it a more narrative account, then no reason not to do it and see how it ends up.--MONGO 05:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly my time is limited for editing these articles while I'm busy organizing a conference (hope you all come!)... but I've thought some how to rework the outline and order of sections here: User:Aude/Sept11-text and it's similar to what Karanacs proposes. It might work and makes sense to me to put the background and context first, (after the lead) and then the events of the day, the reactions, response, etc. I also agree about working on the child articles and trying to use summary style best as possible to summarize these subtopics in a coherent way. It's a challenge but think it can certainly be achieved. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a good example to emulate might be Oklahoma City bombing, a featured article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An article to which, as a matter of slight interest, I am the second-highest contributor. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice! :) and User:Nehrams2020 did a good job with it, as well. The one important different, though, is that Oklahoma City bombing doesn't have extensive subarticles but think we can still achieve similar summary here with details on 9/11 in the subarticles. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that hardly seems likely given the siege mentality on display here over the last few weeks, culminating in this. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... I haven't read every single thing on the talk page recently, but suppose we could try not to personalize things -- looks like some blame all around :( --and stay focused on the content and tasks at hand. I think many of the folks here have good track records of doing excellent content work and think even this article and subarticles can't be impossible to improve eventually to FA quality. It's indeed a big task I think to try to cover all aspects of the topic in a comprehensive yet summarized way in subarticles and get the main article to be a nice overarching summary. But very doable IMHO. --Aude (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me be frank. I find the usual "blame all round" attitude here at Wikipedia to be deeply offensive and contrary to any known system of logic. The article could easily be fixed, but it won't be without endless battles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I on the other hand am offended by your endless insistence that things don't work, can't work and won't work and that you certainly won't contribute to changing that. You are wasting a lot of valuable time here, not least your own. No evverybdy else: back to work making this article and all of the other ones work, by a process of compromising, building consensus and moving forward slowly and steadily without looking back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just drop it Maunus, you've won. Do whatever you like with the article, but if it's ever brought back to GAN or FAC in anything like its present state don't be surprised by the result. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't win. I'm not playing a game you see. I agree completely that the article needs a lot of work before it is ready for GA or FA status. And I also think I agree with you more or less about what kinds of changes would be required. But I know that it can be done, if enough people decide they want to give it a try in a collaborative, collegial manner.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you are, but in your defence far from the only one dancing around. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Farmer
I've reverted the following new addition to the article. The main reason is that is that the new content doesn't really tell the reader anything useful. The new content says that politicians and military officials were dishonest, but doesn't tell us how the they were dishonest. It doesn't tell us anything specific, just a general allegation with no detail. It's sizzle without the steak. I'm not opposed to adding something to the article, but not this. If someone wants to propose new text, that's fine. But we have to weigh whatever new content we add into the article with everything else in the article says to make sure it all fits in together. And also keep in mind that the article is long. We should try to resist the temptation to add new stuff without also considering what we're going to remove to make room. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "content" argument above, but editors needn't consider length if they wish to add to this article. If an article is considered too long, someone else will (eventually) address the issue, so please don't hesitate to add content (obviously within other policies and guidelines). Note that "long" is subjective and dependent on topic, and that there are currently 786 articles longer than this one. GFHandel &#9836; 04:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also currently 14 FAs longer than this one. Shirt  waist &#9742;  08:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I’ve seen this item up for discussion elsewhere in the past. It seems to be an example of 9/11 Truth Movement “quote mining”. My understanding is that Farmer does mention resistance to the investigation from military government officials, but doesn’t see this as anything especially unusual or detrimental to the investigation, being something fairly typical of any investigation into the possible negligence or wrongdoing of such people. — TheHerbalGerbil (TALK, 14:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if Iraq authority asks "Why do they need to interrogate our undergraduates?" but still allows inspectors (US intelligence agents who provided Pentagon with bombing coordinates) to interrogate them, it is not "fully cooperating" and needs to be bombed immediately. --Javalenok (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with this? Nothing. --Tarage (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

e-book?
This page and others seems to be an e-book available for $2.51. I don't see any author credits. Does anyone know something about this? (Found the author credits, so that probably satisfies the licensing.) Tom Harrison Talk 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats weird...when one can simply pull up the web and see it here for free.--MONGO 04:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon. I've seen several "books" on Amazon that are just repackaged Wikipedia articles. It's a complete rip-off, and Amazon will take them down if notified. Of course, that old P. T. Barnum phrase comes to mind: "There's a sucker born every minute." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a scam: "High-quality content from Wikipedia" repackaged, printed on demand and sold for a hefty price if you want it in dead-tree form, or sent to your Kindle for a bit less.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

you call this neutral?
This article is just not neutral, even in the "see also" section!! very very stubborn guys work on this article. You may want me to come up with an example, but that's funy to me since the Talk page starts like this "...Although the mainstream media has reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact..." blah, blah, balh. You guys can't accept "a little" criticism. Let the other side breath a little, if not talk. I came to help, but it's like you've taken the door knob while asking me please open the door. lapsking (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They think they own the article, it looks kind of like doo-doo to me and is written like poo but if somebody else tries to improve it you cause Ego-hurt and they revert it. Say by the way do you know of a good article I can read on the September 11 attacks? I was curious how tall the twin towers were, what side of the buildings the planes hit, what floors were impacted, how fast the planes were going, what were they "heavily fueled" with- unleaded gasoline or highly volatile Jet fuel?. etc.etc.etc. While a literary gem writing like this is not very informative:

"At 8:46 a.m., five hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center's North Tower (1 WTC), and at 9:03 a.m., another five hijackers crashed United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower (2 WTC)" 7mike5000 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lapsking, it is true that a small group of editors who frequent this article have experienced some difficulty with collaborating, cooperating, and compromising with other editors. The RfC to add the 9/11 conspiracy theories link to the See Also section was such a landslide against their position, however, that perhaps they have now reconsidered their attitude.  If you have any additions you would like to make to the article, please go ahead and try to add them.  I believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories link needs to be added to the navigation template, and the FAQ answer you mention probably needs to be amended. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has gone through some tough times - the most recent  good article reassessment points out some of the concerns raised here. There has been an attempt to fix many of the problems but neutrality is still a concern. As noted by how many times it comes up. All that said forcing in edits will get no wear in this article - on the other hand a good well layout  proposal(s) may get some attention and move things forward in the right direction. Is it to soon to address the communities concerns  about  neutrality, I think not! lets move on and fix it.. (Sorry to say I have no solutions myself to offer) As for the talk header link yes its the wrong info as it links to a position of YES. Moxy (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please remember that neutrality doesn't mean that fringe theories should be prominently featured, or that an extensive list of "see also" links are an appropriate way to get around consensus. Undue emphasis must be handled carefully and such additions are subject to discussion. Mainstream reliable sources treat 9/11 conspiracy theories as fringe subjects, and the article should reflect that, the internet conspiracy echo chamber not withstanding. I speak as one who favors minimal inclusion (as opposed to exclusion) of conspiracy material, but due proportion to reliable sources is pretty minimal. Moxy's Cla68 description of a "landslide" is perhaps an overstatement, sentiment clearly was in favor of minimal inclusion, and the current article reflects that with the link. The topic of "neutrality" with respect to conspiracy theories and its recurring discussion here reflects people's interest in the conspiracy angle more than it reflects credence given in the news or in scholarship.


 * As for other changes, work is ongoing to tighten the article, reducing duplicate material that is already present in daughter articles such as American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, World Trade Center, Collapse of the World Trade Center and others. The article is seen by many editors as unwieldy at present, so improvements should favor concision if possible, rather than including every possible fact or statistic relating to airplane speed, building height, etc.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with your position 100 percent ... that it should reflect what is out there - not total exclusion. As you can tell I also believe some sort of small notation/mention should be forth coming.Moxy (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about the misattribution!  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've been watching this page for some time (as a spectator more interested in procedural aspects of WP), so as a suggestion ... instead of bleeding new links into the "See also" section, would it be possible to put one "switchboard" link there (e.g. to or similar)? That way people who are interested in such things, can quickly go to a page where they can find other links. It would seem to me that having lots of similar links in the "See also" section is starting to look like WP:Undue there. GFHandel &#9836;  00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very interesting link idea - I think it is better  we  confront the issues over more links to other sub CT pages. I believe context should be given to the subject. Explanation is due before linkage in this case as to me the "See also" simply  leads readers to articles riddled with POV sources that advances the one cause as per each CT  article. We should not  be afraid to say in this article that CT's  hold no merit in the academic community. Omitting the issues here and just linking CT's gives no proper neutrality on the  subject for  our readers.Moxy (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A Template containing all articles related to "11 september attacks" is another good to avoid too many "See Also" links in my opinion. But beside these links and templates, there must be a section dedicated to "conspiracy theories" in main article, at least a paragraph or two. Consipiracy theories exist wether you like them or not, so the article should contain that, only a little link in "See Also" almost means nothing.lapsking (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And still it's not neutral. Neutral means containing all theories, wether it's most believed theory or consipiracy theory. It must be multi-perspective to be neutral, refelecting only one theory while there exists some other theories (with reliable sources) almost means NOT neutral. lapsking (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory perspective is not supportable since zero engineering, zero investigative and zero reputable scientists support any of the conspiracy theories. There is the 911 conspiracy theories article which discusses these idiotic notions in detail.MONGO 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So why are we not saying this in the article? I am sure we all agree they do exist regardless of there credibility. We cant simply ignor the mass about of data on this subject that is widely available. Regardless of what someone believes the fact is that there are CT's that have been widely reported and written about by neutral third parties. Moxy (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "zero engineering, zero investigative and zero reputable scientists support any of the conspiracy theories."... Zero doesn't exist in realtiy. see? that's what I'm talking about stubborn kids. They only can read what they would like to write. Their brains are fossilized with the help of media. --lapsking (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * just a little copy/paste from the very article you mentioned: "It has been claimed that action or inaction by U.S. officials with foreknowledge was intended to ensure that the attacks took place successfully. For example, Michael Meacher, former British environment minister and member of Tony Blair's Cabinet has stated that the United States knowingly failed to prevent the attacks.[67][68] Author David Ray Griffin alleges that the 9/11 conspiracy was considerably larger than the government claims and that the entire 9/11 Commission Report "is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true."[69] An FBI supervisor involved in the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui sent a message in August 2001 to his superiors in Washington that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center."[70] Some of the FBI agents involved in that investigation felt they were being thwarted by the government.[71]"... there are a lot more, but closed [eyes can't] see. lapsking (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1% of the plate doesn't get 50% of the pie.-- JOJ Hutton  21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * but it should get %1 of the plate at least wich it doesn't, it only takes %0 of the article (don't tell me there is a little link in "See Also" which requiers a microscope to recognize it.). And it's not just %1, it's much more than that, just take a look at this polls September 11 attacks opinion polls. lapsking (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually with this article and the conspiracy theory article each constitute 50%, which is more than it deserves.-- JOJ Hutton  04:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to wikipedia principles, fringe theories themselves shouldn't be included in the article, however, IMO some way of linking to them would be appropriate - they are related to the article subject. Neutrality/NPOV is specifically *not* including every fringe theory, it *is* specifically excluding them. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not fringe theories, they are conspiracy theories. Could you show me a Wikipedia principle that says the articles should not contain conspiracy theories? AND even when I just tried to add September 11 attacks opinion polls to "See Also" section, "stubborn" guys took it off. lapsking (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2008 poll shows that only %46 of the people of the world believe it was done by Al-Qaeda (less than %50). %15 believe it was don by US government, %7 believe it was done by Israel, %7 mentioned other theories and %25 didn't know. see: September 11 attacks opinion polls. --lapsking (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

They are considered fringe when wikipedia consensus judges them so. The opposition to them speaks for itself. There should be a link (perhaps via the category as described above), but not an undue number of links, imo. Appeals to (false) authority, like opinion polls, doesn't really cut it. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not consensus. The title says it all 9/11 conspiracy theories. see? C.O.N.S.P.I.R.A.C.Y, still I would like to read the principle you mentioned. --lapsking (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say *I* was consensus. Consensus and wikipedia principles is how anything and everything is included in wikipedia. WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:UNDUE would be relevant. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)WP:FRINGE says "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." This article is far from  a "scientific article" its an overview article about a certain event in history and its effects  be they scientific in nature  or cultural in nature.Moxy (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're unlikely to make any headway here lapsking. The issues you're raising are exactly why I nominated this article at WP:GAR, and why it's no longer a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any priciple saying the fringe theories shouldn't be in main article here Fringe theories. That's what Jimbo Wales said: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether. ". Thanks Malleus, for nominating this unneutral article at WP:GAR, it's far faraway from being a GA, if they are "stubborn" that doesn't mean we should give up. --lapsking (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are. I have. You will. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Scientific topics" is an example, WP:FRINGE is clearly not limited to scientific topics. Fringe 9/11 theories are not excluded from wikipedia, there are entire articles about them, as there are on other entirely discredited ideas, like creationism, holocaust denial, etc. However, we are talking about this article, which is about what happened according to WP:RELIABLE sources. Although, my comment was about whether there should be a general link to conspiracy theory articles, as opposed to many links. It was not about the general state of the article. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add just one thing to what you've said before I leave you to do what you will this pitiful article, which is that it isn't just an account of the events of the day. It's also an account of the reactions to the day, and to exclude the substantial body of opinion worldwide that has expressed clear doubts about the official version, whether or not you believe those doubts to be rooted in fact, is simply incompatible with a neutral account. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply jumpin ever 6 months or so to see if the editors have advanced there understanding of what an encyclopedia is and thus its overall function. Moxy (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So I will add Template:POV at the top, until there will be at least a little section for other theories as Jimbo Wales said: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article" ". lapsking (talk) 18:24, November 21, 2011


 * Not sure this will help in fact believe it will inflame those apposes to the idea.Just keep talking it out here and pls dont move the argument over content to the article its self (as most are aware of the problem here).Moxy (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The last RfC found consensus to include one link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's also a link in the template. The way to change the article is to build on the talk page a consensus for what you want. Tom Harrison Talk 23:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can read above, MANY editors here think the article is not neutral. Do not take the template 'till the action that's needed is done. lapsking (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The POV template isn't appropriate. Use the talk page to build consensus for your changes. Also, it's better to get consensus before changing the FAQ. I've restored Cs32en's version. Tom Harrison Talk 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can read above (or maybe you can't) the consensus say the article should change. I think it's you who has to bring his "stubborn" friends to oppose "the consensus". lapsking (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really would urge you to leave this now lapsking, and perhaps reflect on Moxy's comment above. The article is what is and won't be improved until an entrenched group of editors either come to their senses or leave; you're not about to change anyone's mind here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Their Ego make me sick, I've been working on Wikipedia for years, but now I've lost my love for it. lapsking (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Many parts of Wikipedia are wilderness no-go areas like this one. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Insulting editors is not a good way to convince them that you are correct. Malleus will never learn this, but I have hope tht Lapskingwiki will. --Tarage (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest, however, that this would be an opportunity to restore less contentious and embarrassing wording to FAQ A1. The previous answer distinguishes carefully between the media reporting on and supporting (lending credence to or advocating) conspiracy theories, but fails to make the same distinction with regard to the content of the article. It also fails to distinguish between consensus (views of editors, as expressed by themselves, which anyone can read) and a statement by a closing admin. Finally it unnecessarily contrains meaningful discussion on how the topic of conspiracy theories might be handled differently (and perhaps more effectively) than simply having a "see also" link. Geometry guy 00:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Geometry guy: There have been a lot of changes to the FAQ, and it's difficult for me to keep up. Can you please point to a version of FAQ1 that you think is better than the current version? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the due weight we are to give the CT's? If zero engineers, scientists and investigators give any, what weight should we. Are you suggesting that since some people "believe" in the 911 Ct's (much like some that think storks deliver babies, or that Bigfoot is an interdimensional space beast, or that most of the world's most powerful people are Reptilians) we should discuss it as a cultural thing?--MONGO 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you open your eyes and mind at the same time you'll see that there are some investigators who believe in conspiracy theories. lapsking (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)You are correct Lapskingwiki - groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice all have members who are considered experts in there fields including engineers, scientists and investigators (they may not be the brightest but they are experts). Like many others that have raised this  concern - I believe the intent  is not to push a POV or include information  that is not widely available to the public, but to have complete article that covers all aspects of 911 in an informative manner. I realy don't see how zero  percent coverage of info that is so widely published in books, films, TV etc.. is a neutral position.  No matter how wrong the CT's are we have to admit they have had a cultural impact on societies all over the world.Moxy (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Moxy, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is very interesting article but unfortunatley a close mind will deny it's existence and keeps saying Zero, zero, zero. OPEN YOUR MIND, even NYtimes is laughing at Wikipedia and neutrality of this article. --lapsking (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * AE911Truth has no credibility in the architectural and engineering professions. All professions have people out on the fringes, architects and engineers are no different from the legal and medical professions in that respect, so the existence of such a group of people with standard professional qualifications doesn't prove a great deal.   Acroterion   (talk)   05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Moxy? They only can see what they like to see. Those who are on their side are professionals and reliable, others are dumbs or do not exist at all. Their brains have been fossilized. --lapsking (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those who point out that a particular group is is fringe pressure group that has published nothing but innuendo and speculation are pointing out that we are all expected to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing and undue weight; disparagement of the messenger is not going to change that.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be the main problem here - that is that anyone even third party neutral authors writing about CT's are dismissed here because of the topic of there writings  not because of who they are or the coverage that they have  received in the real world be it right or wrong. We should be talking about the cultural effects that CTs have had like with the platforms  of political parties ie.Canadian Action Party. To simply dismiss  all mention of CT's and thus there cultural impact is a glaring omission  in this so called overview article. Moxy (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What is this overwhelming consensus I am hearing about? From what I can see, three editors want more inclusion, and the rest do not. Granted my math might be wrong, but that doesn't sound like anything except for consensus to keep things the way they are. And for the record, edit warring and insults are not the way to win consensus. Start acting civil, or you may be asked to leave. --Tarage (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can count only three editors who want "more inclusion"? What about all of those others who commented at the recent GAR? Malleus Fatuorum 10:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * lapsking, Moxy, 7mike5000, Cla68, Malleus, A Quest For Knowledge, Geometry guy... these are users who discussed only on this section for a change, but I'm sure there are a lot of more useres out there since this unneutrality has been reported even on NYtimes. And ofcourse we are minorities, that's why we only want a little section in the article, if we were consensus we would edit the whole article. So stop exagerating, or it's you who have to leave. lapsking (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if we are %10 percent who believe in inclusion of conspiracy theories (which we are more than that), then %10 of the article should refelect our ideas. That's neutrality. What you want is total dictatorship. --lapsking (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have 10 thousand "editors" here squealing about the lack of conspiracy and fringe theory discussion in this article and that wouldn't matter. The article is based on the facts of the case, established by engineers, scientists and investigators that back their findings up using the scientific method, not fantasies, myths or outright lies. NPOV, UNDUE, ONEWAY and other policies demand what the reliable references tell us, not what opinion polls, non peer reviewed websites and other areas of misinformation are belching. It is never surprising to see CT advocates here whining about the lack of CT dribble in the article...there goal has always been to ignore our policies, gain a foothold and then ask for more and more coverage of their unsubstantiated nonsense.MONGO 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [after ec] In my view it's impossible to ignore that conspiracy theories exist. Have a look at this very easy keyword search on Google books: . In my view the thing to do would be to read some of these sources and in the article, using attribution, explain the existence of the theories very briefly and in summary style, and then lean on one of these sources to explain why they don't hold up. That would really balance the page better. It's one thing to say CT advocates whine, it's another to see what sources say. And btw - no I don't believe in the theories but I know they exist. The bottom line is that my opinion, or yours, or anyone else's is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the sources tell us. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course conspiarcy theories exist. Thats why wikipedia has an article about them. Its called 9/11 conspiracy theories. That article is for mass of alternate theories, and this article, September 11 attacks, is for what really happened.-- JOJ Hutton  16:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point you keep missing is that a part of what happened was that all these consipiracy theories grew up. That you or I or anyone else gives them little credence is immaterial, they're part of the story. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the point.. they exist, thus are part of the overall story. "What really happened" is that this CT morons did have an impact on society  regardless if we like it or not. This is an overview article a parent article if you will, its not called the Official account of the September 11 attacks. At no point has anyone suggested we amend the tone of the article or insert an alternative view throughout the article. What has been suggested is that CT's are mentioned in there context. That is the political and social affects of CT's not stating  they are valid or even going into details about them. There seems to be a disconnect in understanding the different between mentioning them in there context over  pushing there POVs into the article. As a reader on a topic of this nature would you not except overall coverage presented in neutral  manner over simple omission.  Moxy (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "At no point has anyone suggested we amend the tone of the article or insert an alternative view throughout the article." I'm not sure that's the case. Tom Harrison Talk 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this time around... However the statement below leads me to believe we are not all on the same page here.. I spoke to soon I guess..My mistake.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that everyone thinks what he believes is what has happened, that's why we should refelect all theories with reliable sources and let the reader himself judge. you can't judge for the reader. --lapsking (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey if some people don't want to believe their own eyes, that's their bag man, not mine. Occam's razor. Wikipedia already gave the conspiracy theories its own article. Does each individual theory need its own article too? Should what really happened be tainted by what some "think" happened? This article is about the facts only. So, I will leave with a quote from Jack Nicholson in As Good as It Gets, "Go sell crazy some place else, we're all booked up here".-- JOJ Hutton  01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Jack Nicholson quote unfortunately has no worth here, it ain't Hollywood but Wikipedia. Nobody's saying that Al-Qaeda was not behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but we are saying some believe that they couldn't do the job without some others support, and since this article is the parent article, a brief story could be mentioned here redirecting to CT main article for more information. --lapsking (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If those wishing to add more conspiracy theory coverage to the article would like to provide proper source material, then they should do so here. Otherwise this entire discussion is pointless wanking. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually many have been provided - In fact we use some in the article already - just not allowed to use them for CT  purposes. See Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 and Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 54 that lists many of them. Moxy (talk)
 * Not including a simple link to 9/11 conspiracy theories is asinine. But then again personally I think the whole article bites. The title of the article is "September 11 attacks" you shouldn't have to go to "daughter articles" to find out basic information like where did the planes strike the building, flight paths (I managed to slip in "File:Flight paths of hijacked planes-September 11 attacks.jpg"), times the planes took off (managed to slip that in), what kind of planes, what were they "heavily fueled" with corn syrup or kerosense based Jet fuel?, the airports they took off from )manged to slip that in.


 * There is more space wasted on Motives for the September 11 attacks, then what actually happened on that day, as if there is some kind of legitamcy behind the mass murder of innocent people by a bunch of dickheads who think that 72 virgins are waiting for them in heaven. This kind of writing is ludicrous: At 8:46 a.m., five hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center's North Tower (1 WTC), and at 9:03 a.m., another five hijackers crashed United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower (2 WTC).[7][8] "Five hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the The Pentagon at 9:37 a.m.[9]
 * Did a fifth grader write that? And this information is very "encyclopedic": "The Pentagon also sustained major damage". Really like what, did the outer ring collapse? What happened? You have to look somwhere else to find out.


 * And BOINGO you're comments are obnoxious, I'm sure they're are people that find your notions "idiotic", this is called Egoism: "since my birth I have made over 45,000 edits...for what that is worth. I am in the top 1000 of editors by number of articles started....WOW!!!", who cares? get over yourself and stop making obnoxious comments like this:

The conspiracy theory perspective is not supportable since zero engineering, zero investigative and zero reputable scientists support any of the conspiracy theories. There is the 911 conspiracy theories article which discusses these idiotic notions in detail.MONGO 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It would take somebody half-way competant the course of a weekend to write a decent article but that would give those who aren't capable a bad case of Ego-hurt So the article looks like crap, has no worthwhile information and everybody gets to talk, talk, talk, talk, blah blah blah etc. etc. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some organizations perpetuating those "idiotic notions":

7mike5000 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Scripps Howard News Service: Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
 * Time Magazine:Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away
 * U.S. News:Conspiracy Theories, Paranoia, Rumors, and Threats to American Democracy
 * BBC:9/11 conspiracy theories
 * September 11 attacks opinion polls


 * @7mike5000: "Not including a simple link to 9/11 conspiracy theories is asinine." We do include a link to 9/11 conspiracy therories. That was the result of the last RfC. If the whole article as written is worthless crap, write a new one in your user space. Propose it here, and if people prefer it, yours will replace the existing one. "get over yourself and stop making obnoxious comments..." That's good advice. Tom Harrison Talk 12:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7mike5000 doesn't seem to understand that my userpage and even my choice of username is a pun on myself. It's best to ignore anyone that misuses this talkpage to insult contributors and does the same in edit summaries, where he stated in a revert of me "personality issues"...yes, I have a personality issue...I think anyone here advocating for MORE conspiracy and fringe theory horseshit needs to be topic banned.MONGO 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's clear and obvious that if we do anything, we should remove the link to 9/11 CT from the article. It makes Wikipedia look stupid and ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First, 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT) are not a scholarly viewpoint. There are few, if any, prominent historians who think that 9/11 was an inside job.
 * Second, reporting on 9/11 CT is not the same thing as advocating them. Yes, there's lots of coverage about 9/11 CT.  But that only makes it notable for its own article, it doesn't mean that it belongs here.
 * Third, there are a lot of reports of UFOs, but that doesn't mean that we rewrite every astronomy article to include UFO sightings. (And unlike 9/11 CT, there's at least the possibility that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe.)
 * Fourth, the number of people who believe in 9/11 CT is irrelevant. About a fifth of Americans think that the Sun goes round the Earth, and that atoms are smaller than electrons.  That doesn't mean we rewrite these articles to reflect these widespread beliefs as if they were scholarly viewpoints.
 * Fifth, WP:ONEWAY states that "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Every article I've seen so far is about 9/11 CT, not 9/11 itself. We spent months trying to find sources which connected the two topics in a serious and prominent way.  In the end, we couldn't find a single source, let alone a significant amount to justify due weight.
 * We are not saying most of the historians say 9/11 was an inside job. We are saying there are some investigators who believe in conspiracy theoris, But you are trying to show they don't exist at all.
 * Some Arab guys with razor blades overtake a modern jetliner, force their way into the cockpit, figure out how to control the plane, figure out how to operate the navigation system, and then fly uncontested hundreds of miles to their target? I could see that happening once, in 1000 years. But 4 times? Simultaneously in one day? Without any help? IMPOSSIBLE. -lapsking (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just compare 9/11 with other terrorist attacks that Al-Qaeda did. AL-Qaeda terrorist only know how to ride a truck packed with TNTs, that's the most dangerous action they could take. How can you believe they were that smart?
 * At last, we are not saying we should advocate 9/11 CT in the article, we are saying we should report them in the article, because they exist. lapsking (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We report the conspiracy lunacy in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, not here. And I'll take the actual events of the day over absurdist theories that an amount of explosives sufficient to destroy not one, but THREE skyscrapers were somehow smuggled in without anyone finding them. (which still doesn't explain the hijacked airplanes, the attack on the Pentagon, or the crash in the Pennsylvania field). Absurdist conspiracy theories have no place in this article.
 * What happened is quite simple. Al-Queda terrorists with flight training hijacked four airplanes, exploiting the lack of security at airports and in airplanes. Taking control of the airplanes by claiming to have a bomb, they proceeded to pilot these planes towards four targets - the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the Capitol building. The attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon succeeded - the towers collapsed due to massive structural damage combined with weakening of the supports of the building due to the sheer heat in which jet fuel burns. The attack on the Capitol failed because the passengers rebelled against the terrorists, exploiting the same lack of security the terrorists used - they managed to cause the plane to crash in a field in Pennsylvania. The absurdist theories you support and promote for inclusion in this article did not happen.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * grow up or keep chewing on what media feeds you. lapsking (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't refute my points, so you go to insults instead? Nice.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I insulted you I'm so sorry, excuse me please. But denying minorities thoughts and calling them %100 absurd while they come up with reliable sources and reasons, ain't insulting? --lapsking (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying anyone's ability to think. The fact is, the conspiracy theories are indeed absurd from every possible angle; the idea that an incompetent government can pull off a massive conspiracy to murder 3,000 citizens without a single leak, and then have it debunked swiftly by 'normal' citizens is indeed absurd. Further, no significant, serious sources have been found linking the conspiracy crap to the events themselves, so they do not belong here - they belong on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What anyone believes is unimportant. What's important is what the sources tell us. I haven't researched the subject enough to know whether new scholarly books and journals are acknowledging the existence of the theories or not. If they are, we have to reflect it. We can't just decide we don't like something and we're gonna be Jack Nicholson and not play. Doesn't work that way here. I'm beginning to think that this might be a very good case for the arbs; can't think of any other place it'll be sorted. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had several. They all say the same thing. Adding more than what is currently here is undue weight. There are specific pages for conspiracy theories. This exact same discussion comes up every few months and it always ends on the side of common sense and not allowing POV pushing to ruin this article. At worst, it results in a topic ban on the more zealous pushers. I'd like that to not happen again, so let's stop shall we? --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind refocusing the discussion as to whether we should include the link to begin with. I'm starting to wonder if the previous RfC was closed incorrectly. Concensus is supposed to be determined by the strength of the arguments, not by a vote count. The closing rationale gives no explanation as to how they arrived at their conclusion, which to me implies that they were only looking at the numbers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really have to repeat this - "There seems to be a disconnect in understanding the different between mentioning them in there context over pushing there POVs into the article."Moxy (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. Knock it out entirely. Kill the link, and dedicate this page to what actually happened and let the other page be only about the various mass of "theories" and "alternate explanations". Problem solved.-- JOJ Hutton  21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe the Official account of things. What I am not in denial about is the affect of CT's on society - We have political parties and governments all over the world asking for  separate  investigation because they belive in the CT BS. We have civil suites based on CT's all over the world that are tying up the courts and costing millions.  We have 100s a books, movies and  TV doc etc, that is a multi million dollar industry.  We have a large portion of populations around the world that adhere to this odd accounts of things as explained by the CTers. The fact is that CT's are part of the aftermath of the event if we like it or not. Why we cant mention them in there context in society is still not clear to me if we are not going into details about the CT's or inserting there POV in the article. Moxy (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, thats why those conspiracy theories got their own page. If they didn't get that much press, they wouldn't have a page at all, and get swept under the rug as Fringe.-- JOJ Hutton  21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What? So you agree they have had lots of press, but still dont think there inpact on society is relevant? PS the CT articles  dont talk about the social, political or economic affects  of CT's.Moxy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Moxy: I have no problem with a passing mention of CT (literally 2 words) as part of a sentence about 9/11 impact on American psyche. IIRC, I even took a rough stab at such a sentence during one of the previous discussions. Should we revisit that idea? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This might not be a bad idea, if it's instead of and not in addition to the see-also link. My concern is it would expand from two words to a sentence, then a paragraph, and so on. Tom Harrison Talk 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern would be that as soon as the article opens up to one conspiracy theory, then it will open up to all of them, until we get to the point where we have people adding "alleged" in front of everything, ...plane being allegedly flown into the North Tower, or the buildings allegedly collapsing. Think I'm wrong? It's a slippery slope people.-- JOJ Hutton  23:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should revisit the idea. We should fix this problem that keeps coming up every few months. I personal hate the "see also" link because it leads our readers without explanation to a page that the average reader  will belive is well sourced as it  "looks" well sourced even if its not. A few sentences/words  here not mentioning the details of any CT, just stating that they are there is good approach.  It should resolve most issues that arise about the article being omissive is this regard. List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks cant be ignored forever. Moxy (talk)
 * That's exactly what ought to be done. But we have to bear in mind that this article is really designed as a memorial, not a neutral account of the attacks and their aftermath. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This book is a best seller and was well received ingeneral - on  page 62 the second paragraph explains it well and can be our ref..  .Moxy (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that the most helpful way to deal with CTs here is for the article to acknowledge briefly that they exist and have had a cultural impact, but that they are widely discredited: in other words, their cultural notability is the reason for inclusion, not their negligible credibility. Geometry guy 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with inclusion under any circumstance. CTs are not notable in relation to the events themselves, which is what that article covers. Add in the slippery slope (CT nuts will take any inch you give them and turn it into a mile) and neutrality concerns and these have no reason to be on this article.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the article is dominated by "Aftermath" topics. Only the 2 first sections are about the event itself, the last 5 sections are about "Aftermath".Moxy (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I dislike "slippery slope" arguments because they lack principles. The way to deal with slippery slopes is to rebuild them on firm foundations of principle, so that they are no longer slippery. Geometry guy 01:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a see also link now to the land of wacko...I suggest if anyone wants to read or discuss wacky things like 9/11 CT's, that's the place to do so.--MONGO 03:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
I agree with Geometry guy "the article to acknowledge briefly that they exist and have had a cultural impact, but that they are widely discredited:" (my bolding). I also agree that slippery slope arguments are poor, bordering on fallacy. I think any reasonable user of an online encyclopedia would expect a mention of the conspiracy theories and a general link. This is not undue weight, and gives them no additional credibility - see bolding above. ( Hohum  @ ) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Tom harrison and topic banning Mongo. "If the whole article as written is worthless crap, write a new one in your user space. Propose it here, and if people prefer it, yours will replace the existing one." When I get a chance maybe I'll do that. Considering that twelve of the images currently on the existing page were added by me and at least six were uploaded by me i would say I have a good start. As far as the "conspiracy theories", there is a differance between a "Some people claim to have seen Elvis leave the WTC prior to the attacks" "conspiracy theory" and valid "controversy" such as why the recovered steel was being shipped to China while the ruins were still smoldering over the objections of numerous fire engineers and architects.

"In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors."
 * Attack on Pearl Harbor has Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory because it's part of history.
 * Assassination of John F. Kennedy has a section on Assassination conspiracy theories
 * Martin Luther King, Jr. has a section Assassination and its aftermath with the subsection Allegations of conspiracy
 * Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy has Alternative theories with subsections CIA involvement theory and Second gunman theory
 * Gulf of Tonkin incident the pretext for involvement in Vietnam has "Distortion of the event" nad "NSA report" which includes this "idiotic notion", 41 years after the fact:
 * Moon landing has "Hoax accusations"
 * The "controversies" surrounding the September 11 attacks have had a profound effect on US public opinion and world opinion, they are not only a part of history but still have an effect today. Anyone who is not cognizant of that fact and can't see the relevance of mentioning this in an article on the September 11 attacks should probably should go find something else to do instead of making veiled little threats about "personal attacks", "topic banning" blah, blah, etc. against people who are trying to improve the quality and content of the material on Wikipedia. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. You have provided no reason why WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY should be ignored.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring WP:NPOV is "not" including the fact that at least 1/3 of Americans do not believe the official version of events. "Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy" . this is actually well written:September 11 attacks opinion polls. If they are fringe theories you don't debunk them by ignoring their existence in the main article. The "controversies also extend into the aftermath of the attacks.

These guys have credentials: Pilots For 9/11 Truth. they have no theories beyond that the whole truth hasn't been told: Yet people with no verifiable credentials just pseudonyms like MONGO and a A Quest For Knowledge decide that they know more and everyone else has "idiotic notions" and "fringe theories". Likewise major news organizations have reported on the "controversies" yet Wikipedia which vaunts itself on being "neutral" has a little cabal who are being anything but as there is nary a mention in the main article. 7mike5000 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC) "'the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation'~Thomas Kean." Okay all done bye bye 7mike5000 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times:EDITORIAL: 9/11 cover-up; Government muzzles officer, censors key information about terror attacks Officer in question worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency
 * The Guardian:9/11 - the big cover-up? Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'
 * Discover magazine: The 9/11 Cover-Up:Thousands of New Yorkers were endangered by WTC debris—and government malfeasance
 * CBS news:9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop
 * New York Times editorial by Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission: Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

So what? About a third of Americans think that lasers work by focusing sound waves. We don't write articles based on the ignorance of the general public. Instead, we write articles based on experts and reliable sources. If I may paraphrase Jimbo Wales e-mail of September 2003: What do mainstream history texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream history community on this point? Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
 * If your viewpoint is held by a significant historian minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article.
 * Please do not use boilerplates to reply to specific comments. 7mike5000 has provided reliable sources for a number of issues which might be considered for inclusion in the article. They should be considered. Geometry guy 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth about what's going here has surely been evident for some time now. This article is designed to be a memorial, not a neutral account of the events of 9/11 and their aftermath, which is why it will never be better than it is. It may well be satisfactory to American red-necks in its present state, but it most definitely is not to anyone not draped in red white and blue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Geometry guy: Are you addressing me? If so, it wasn't a boiler plate.  I was addressing specific points raised by 7mike5000.  He claimed that we're not following NPOV, but in order for 9/11 CT to be covered in the article, he needs to name several prominent historians who adhere to this POV.  He has not done so.  He also claimed that a third of Americans believe in CT, but we don't write articles based on a POV's popularity among the general public.  Not sure why any of that is confusing, but then again, you used an alleged MOS issue in a GAR even though MOS is not part of the GA criteria, so who knows? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh: read your own talk page. Now was he addressing the notability or the credibility of CTs? It isn't a difficult question. Think about it. Geometry guy 01:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9/11 CTs are obviously notable, which is why we have a full article devoted to it: 9/11 conspiracy theories. But what does that have to do with this article?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously asking why notable facts about the 9/11 attacks should be excluded from this memorial article? Seriously? Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Malleus Fatuorum: Just because a fringe theory is notable, doesn't mean it gets included in this article. We don't include Big Foot in the article on mammels or the Loch Ness Monster in the article on reptiles just because Big Foot and the Lock Ness Monster are notable topics in and of themselves.  WP:NPOV is very clear on this matter.  We only cover majority and significant minority viewpoints in an article.  For everything else:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * That ancillary article is 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm not sure what more we can possibly do while still following policy.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The notability of some conspiracy theories (or related issues) doesn't mean they "should" be mentioned, nor does it mean they "shouldn't" be mentioned. What we need to do is drop the sticks, and discuss how best to deal with the very prevalent issue of conspiracy theories in the article. Otherwise, this talk page will remain in interminable conflict, and Wikipedia will regularly be pilloried in the media. Geometry guy 02:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Geometry guy: Ummmm...that goes exactly against what WP:NPOV states. Viewpoints held by an extremely small minority do not belong in Wikipedia except perhaps in some ancillary article.  This has nothing to do with 'sticks', it has to do with following policy.  If you disagree with WP:NPOV, then the proper venue for changing NPOV is the NPOV talk page.  But please don't do it here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stood up for WP:NPOV with my every single edit, and my comment does not contradict that. If you think brandishing sticks rather than reasoned discussion is the best way to achieve NPOV, please enlighten me about your viewpoint. Geometry guy 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Geometry guy: You say that you've stood up for WP:NPOV, and I hope that's true. But can you please name some prominent historians who believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing such a fabulous illustration of the problems editors face in improving this article. You conflate and confuse pretty much every issue in just one post: I hope MONGO is proud of you. Go ahead: mix up notability and credibility, treat genuine concerns in the same way as you treat cranks, blur the distinction between conspiracy theories and fringe science; do whatever you need to do to justify the untenable position that this article completely ignores the existence of conspiracy theories or indeed any critical commentary of the standard history of events. Geometry guy 03:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Geometry Guy: WP:NOTABILITY has nothing to do with this. We have no policy on credibility so I assume that you mean WP:WEIGHT.  The governing policy regarding weight is WP:NPOV.  In order to establish weight (i.e. a significant minority), you need to provide several prominent historians who adhere to 9/11 CT.  And please don't argue that NPOV only applies to science, not history.  NPOV applies to all articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention WP:NOTABILITY. I contribute under the assumption that editors of the English language Wikipedia are familiar with the English language, and not just wikispeak. I entirely agree that NPOV applies to all articles, but how NPOV is best achieved in any given article requires human intelligence and dialogue, otherwise editors would be out of a job (not a very well paid one, admittedly). Reducing everything to the nearest available guideline is a crutch. I also entirely agree that in order to include a particular 9/11 CT as an alternative history of events, several prominent historians who adhere to that theory would be required. However, in order to include 9/11 CTs as a cultural phenomenon, we need instead evidence of its notability as a phenomenon, and if we want the article to comment on more than the existence of the phenomenon, then it is not historians (adhering to CTs) we need to find, but sociologists (who have studied them). Geometry guy 18:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already stated that I'm fine with a passing reference to CT. In fact, in one of the previous discussions, I wrote a rough draft of a paragraph on 9/11's impact on American culture, but nobody liked it, and no one proposed an alternate text.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent - maybe we are converging. Geometry guy 18:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center—regarding the approach taken in including that section in that article (placement, weight, tone, referencing, etc). GFHandel &#9836; 04:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge, when are you going to understand that your exagerated propagandas do not work here. Those who believe in conspiracy theorie are minority, but obviously not "extremely small minority", you know that better than us. so please stop exagerating like MONGO who exagerates in another way saying "zero engineering, zero investigative and zero reputable scientists" support any of the conspiracy theories. We have offered reliable sources more than what's needed, so let's talk about facts and stop exagerating or we get no where. And as Mike said, other articles contain conspiracy theories in the main article and this one shouldn't be any execption just because it might make some people sad.--lapsking (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide us with even ONE example of a 9/11 CT that has been published in a reputable peer reviewed engineering or scientific journal...there are some oldish reports in more sensationalistic tabloid magazines and some books written by those wishing to promote CT's and published by themselves or by second rate publishers mostly interested (as are the authors) in making a buck, and there are some self published websites...but there is not one CT regarding this event that has been published by a reliable source.MONGO 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The War on Error:Patriots question 9/11; : Architects, engineers, military and civilian pilots, medical professionals, major new organizations like the BBC, military officers and government officials including Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret), AND also Thomas Kean, the government appointed chairman of the government created ad hoc committe tasked with finding the "truth" of what happened who stated they were deliberately "obstructed" in their efforts to do so by segments of the government. I think this article as well as others have been commandeered by space aliens (or Rupert Murdoch) as part of the first phase in their efforts at global domination. This is why I wear a tin-foil hat when I log onto Wikipedia. 7mike5000 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mongo there are plenty of reliable sources that debunk the theories. Instead of saying the theories are wrong and so we the editors have decided not to include them, you lean on a source saying that. It shouldn't be hard and should be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No one is saying that 9/11 CT aren't WP:NOTABLE. We have a full article devoted to 9/11 CT: 9/11 Conspiracy theories and no one is calling for its deletion.  The issue here is whether CT also warrant mention in this article.  In order to do that, we need to address WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY.  Can someone - anyone - anyone at all - do this?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of the article indeed shows that CTs are WP:NOTABLE, the content shows that they are a notable aspect of 9/11, and this article should touch base with them as part of good summary style. Yet it should also not give undue weight nor credibility to theories which have little such credibility. Part of the problem here is that there are two different reasons for mentioning CT related stuff, and a lack of clarity in discussions about which reason is being applied. The first reason is that some CTs contain legitimate criticism of the canonical history of 9/11. The second reason is that CTs are a significant cultural phenomenon. To justify mentioning CTs for the first reason requires different arguments than for the second. It certainly does require one to address issues such as WP:ONEWAY. My personal view is that the first reason would give undue weight: the second reason is more significant, and the article would better touch base with CTs there. Any legitimate criticism of the canonical history is better considered for reliability and due weight on a case-by-case basis, and integrated into the NPOV writing of the article. Geometry guy 18:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Geometry guy: I think you hit the nail on the head. There are two different ways to include CT in the article.  One is as a legitimate viewpoint which seems to be what 7mike5000 and others are arguing for.  The other is a social phenomenon which seems to be what you and Moxy are arguing for.  I'm obviously opposed to the first but would be willing to accept the second as a compromise.  I agree with Tom and others, this would replace the external link at the bottom of the article.  Geometry guy, can you please propose some text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree that an intext link is better than an external one, as it provides readers with information and context. I cannot propose text myself, as I am not a reliable source. Moxy, on the other hand, has demonstrated a convincing familiarity with reliable sources about CTs, and could surely rise to such a challenge: provide an encyclopedic sentence on the notability of CTs as a social phenomenon, with several sources to match. Geometry guy 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7mike5000 and Malleus have also good knowledge and reliable sources about the topic. lapsking (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to read a draft from Moxy of a sentence to go in the section Aftermath, subsection Cultural impact in Aude's proposed outline #2, with one in-text link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. It seems like AQFK proposed a paragraph on cultural impact a while ago. Tom Harrison Talk 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is about the September 11 attacks. Attacks, not inside jobs. Not conspiracies. Not imaginary friends. Not pink elephants or sharks with lasers. Attacks. There are articles about conspiracy theories. There is no reason to pollute this article with nonsense or daftness. If daftness infected a certain subculture after the attacks, then possibly a mention of this phenomenon is reasonable but anything more is strictly against WP:FRINGE. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I read that for some, the CT's popularity were a coping mechanism to help them deal with the overwhelming nature of the event...the worst terrorist attack on a civilian population in peacetime...anyway, the issue is a cultural one, not based in reality or the facts.--MONGO 04:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That may indeed be so, but we should not let emotions color the treatment of the subject in the article.
 * I appreciate DHeyward's general point, but there are better arguments than ones involving pink elephants. The article is also not about Hamburg, NORAD, Guantanamo bay, knives, wind chimes, Islam, the PATRIOT act, trusses, turbans, Manhatten, video tapes, NATO, dust, Muslims, the FAA, Rudy Giuliani, luggage, American foreign policy, Mohammed, airplanes, Afghanistan, the Dow Jones, landfill, but the article makes reference to them all. Geometry guy 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no pink elephants...they don't exist. The fringe theories are no different...they are fantasies...there is no emotion in this simple fact.--MONGO 05:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither is there any logic. The fringe theories clearly do exist, and have had a considerable cultural impact that can't just be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 05:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way have they had this "considerable cultural impact that can't be ignored"? What impact? Are the conspiracy theories taught in schools instead of the facts? Are we seeing credible scientific and engineering journals coming forward with new, startling information due to some new evidence brought to light by defrocked college professors? Are people rising up against the U.S. Government and trying to overthrow it because of this supposed coverup?--MONGO 05:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me try and make this easy for you. Let's start with your statement that, like pink elephants, fringe theories don't exist. Is that really your position, that they don't exist? Malleus Fatuorum 06:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me make it even easier for you...they don't exist amongst reputable scientists engineers and investigators nor in the peer reviewed literature. A bunch of charlatans have published books full of misinformation and polluted the web with non peer reviewed sites offering nothing but lies that the intellectually challenged might find enlightening. You stated that the CT's have had, "considerable cultural impact that can't be ignored"...what culture, what impact? If you're able to say and cite reliably that some cultures have been impacted considerably, then that's one thing. Perhaps the 9/11 CT's impacted the recent Egyptian Revolution? Or revolution in Libya...perhaps some countries no longer teach anything but 9/11 CT's...or teach it as a viable alternative theory alongside the known evidence...--MONGO 06:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You got to be kidding your asking "what culture, what impact?" (have you read any of the links provided above?). This question leads me to believe you have never read a book about the September 11 attacks and your only knowledge  about the topics is from  this article. Competence!!!  Moxy (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Yes, lets see what the cultural impacts are...what are they? Some charlatans wrotye some books to make a buck? IS THAT the cultural impact? You have no idea how broad my knowledge is regarding this issue and you should retract your personal attack about my competence.--MONGO 07:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How Conspiracy Theories Work .Moxy (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That still fails to explain this so called cultural impact...and doesn't address the issue of your questioning the competency of another editor.--MONGO 08:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The cultural impact is clear in many ways (see books below) Mainly  the growing distrust in government has been greatly fulled by this stupid CT's.Moxy (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, there are plenty of theories and ideas out there that have good and strong thinking behind them, focusing more on the people involved than the science of the events. I think when you have so many people that have closed their minds off completely to the possibility that the other side has a point you don't really create a good atmosphere for compromise. Maybe you should apply WP:AGF outside Wikipedia just as much as I presume you apply it here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have trouble doing that when the same question keeps being asked even after it has been answered with references many times... I was out of line - lets move forwardedMoxy (talk)
 * Apology accepted...you were out of line quite obviously, but for the record I have read the entire series of NIST reports as well as the FEMA report prior to that (which NIST superceded) the UN reports, 911 Commission Report, intelligence reviews and classified documents which you don't have access to and a couple of books including most recently "American Ground", Why don't those people whining about the lack of fringe stuff in this article create a new section below and write a paragraph about what the CT section should say and cite it...then we can discuss it and reach a consensus...Moxy, I think Tom Harrison above suggested you do this.--MONGO 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read "American Ground" and in that book they talk about "conspiracy" and how they got out of hand fast because of a simply wording mistake. .Moxy (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A sub-section on conspiracy theories would over-weight the topic. A sub-section on cultural effects, containing one sentence or less with an in-text link to 9/11 conspiracy theories is what I have in mind. Tom Harrison Talk 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the NIST final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1A), where out of a 75 page report, only 2 pages discussed Hypothetical Blast Scenarios....but that was due to the preposterousness and slanders that needed to be addressed...however, no conspiracy theories were discussed in the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST NCSTAR 1)...NIST documents employed dozens of non federal engineers and fire safety specialists for objectivity, including some of an international perspective...we have a 1% or less discussions in these two major documents...in all the engineering literature I have read, there is zero discussion except when someone has written deliberately to explain the implausibility of the 9/11 CT's...the only time CT's are mentioned in reliable sources is to debunk them or try to explain why people find them facinating...if your proposal is along those lines, then fine, otherwise this is not the article to diverge from the focus of what really happened...we have other articles that address these issues and if you or anyone else wants those articles to lend more credence to these fantasies, I suggest you go there and edit them. Othewrwise, start a new section below this one and WRITE what you think the CT discussion should be written in the article.--MONGO 16:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know what part of government those classified documents are affiliated with. However, I see a bigger issue. Why do people seem to think the government is a reliable source that can just be taken for its word? I find this attitude bizarre. Compare the evidence before the Warren Commission to the evidence before the House Select Committee on Assassinations and you will see that the government was deliberately concealing important evidence that seriously challenged the official explanation for the Kennedy Assassination. Given that members of the 9-11 Commission have said plainly that they faced obstruction from various agencies and believed they were not told the whole story suggests that we really shouldn't just take what the 9-11 Commission said at face value, or what has been mentioned in any other publicly-available government report. I do not think the government is a reliable source in general, but I sure as hell don't think it is a reliable source on its own culpability.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Government agencies and reports can be reliable and not reliable. It all depends on context.  I don't think that anyone would seriously suggest that NASA isn't a reliable source for astronomy or that CDC isn't reliable for disease.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was speaking generally, not referring to specifics. In this case, it is essentially the government investigating itself. When you have the fox investigate who broke into the hen house he will almost always conclude that the dog did it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't investigate themselves, they investigated Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 Commission Report has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In fact, it's probably the most cited work on this topic.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They were investigating themselves. That was the whole point of the 9-11 Commission. It was about finding out what the government did wrong. Plenty of agencies were already investigating al-Qaeda. Your misguided praise of the 9-11 Commission aside, internal investigations are usually never the most reliable sources on an issue. Keep in mind also, that most of the time we don't take whatever a prosecutor says about a suspect as being gospel truth. When you get right down to it 9-11 is ultimately a criminal case and statements from the government concerning the suspects should be taken with as much a grain of salt as statements from a district attorney concerning the suspect in a high-profile murder case.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Everytime we're going to reach a conclusion, MONGO takes the discussion to the very starting point and asks the very same repetitive boring question, even though it has been answered with many references many times.--lapsking (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. And it's getting very, very tedious. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They were investigating themselves. That was the whole point of the 9-11 Commission. It was about finding out what the government did wrong. Plenty of agencies were already investigating al-Qaeda. Your misguided praise of the 9-11 Commission aside, internal investigations are usually never the most reliable sources on an issue. Keep in mind also, that most of the time we don't take whatever a prosecutor says about a suspect as being gospel truth. When you get right down to it 9-11 is ultimately a criminal case and statements from the government concerning the suspects should be taken with as much a grain of salt as statements from a district attorney concerning the suspect in a high-profile murder case.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Everytime we're going to reach a conclusion, MONGO takes the discussion to the very starting point and asks the very same repetitive boring question, even though it has been answered with many references many times.--lapsking (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. And it's getting very, very tedious. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much talkin', not enough proposin'
It looks like several of us favor (or are at least open to) a sub-section on cultural effects, containing one sentence or less with an in-text link to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but so far, no one has made a concrete proposal. Look, we can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but until someone comes up with something concrete, we're just spinning our wheels. Can someone please propose some text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I am not sufficiently familiar with the sources to propose text in detail, but I can suggest an outline/structure to get the ball rolling. So that others can better understand my line of thought, I draw attention the lead of Holocaust denial, which editors may know I regard as an exemplar of how to handle something of this sort. It is stable, neutral and informative, but doesn't mince words. I also would note that no sentence is going to change the minds of a hardened conspiracy theorist, nor should it preach to the converted. For maximal usefulness and effectiveness, the audience to have in mind is a reader who has heard about some conspiracy theory or other and wonders if there might be something in it. We don't want to turn off such a reader by telling them that they are an idiot, but we want their visit to WP to provide them the information they need to come to a, how shall I put it, more enlightened view of them? :)
 * I think the sentence should have two clauses, probably separated by a semicolon for maximal neutrality: the first clause should describe the phonomenon of conspiracy theories in the editorial neutral voice. This is tricky to do in a brief fashion as there is such a wide range of CTs, and we don't want to give a list; we need to be guided by sources to draw out any common themes, but the clause could simply be something like "Some individuals and groups have expressed skepticism that Al Qaeda could have carried out the September 11 attacks unaided, in the manner described by mainstream historians". That's a bit weasel-like at the moment, which is why we need sources. It also isn't clear where to put the in-text link.
 * The second clause then delivers the meta information about notability and credibility, and could be much more pointed, provided this is reflected in the sources: for instance it could make a contrast between the notability and credibility. Then, just like "Holocaust denial" does, we end with the label "conspiracy theory". For instance a rough second clause could take the form "despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers and historians, they have become cultural phenomena (with adherents forming Y% of group Z according to poll X) which are studied by historians and sociologists as examples of conspiracy theories".
 * That's the rough shape I would go for. It can be surely be tightened up a lot, but we need sources to help us do that. Geometry guy 19:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all taking place against the backdrop of a government administration which didn't want investigation; which made extensive efforts to hinder investigation; and which exploited the event to implement its own political objectives. This is extensively documented by reliable sources; references and links are readily available.  In my opinion, it's disingenuous to take an approach which equates to "don't look there; nothing credible to see", when we know that there is plenty of reason to be critical of the story as given by the government.  The article shouldn't imply that the "inside job" theory is the only form of criticism directed toward the matter, when there is much which is not theoretical.  Wildbear (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Geometry guy's above works for me as an outline. The wording will no doubt require much adjustment to accurately reflect the sources and reach consensus. It's important that the sentence not stand alone, but appear in context in a paragraph on cultural effects. My understanding is we're aiming for a paragraph on social/cultural effects, not 911 in popular culture. AQFK drafted something; don't know if that reflects his current thinking. The sentence must also not be used as a link platform for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for Truth and Justice, controlled demolition, Alex Jones, Polls that prove we aren't nuts, etc. Tom Harrison Talk 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the context here is social/cultural effects. Specific issues, such as government resistance to investigation, should be considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis, and included, if agreed, in their own context with appropriate balance and weight. That's not what we are discussing in this thread, though.
 * I also agree that an encyclopedia should never take an approach equating to "don't look there, nothing credible to see", but instead should say "do look there, come away more informed and make up your own mind". My outline needs refinement in detail, but the principles on which it is based are important. "Show, don't tell", provide information and "let the reader decide", for example. The text should also not be argumentative: we strive for accuracy and aim to state information in a way that no one can seriously argue with, nor consider as "methinks thou dost protest too much". This is also important for stability and maintenance. Geometry guy 21:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The better article to reference is the The Holocaust and how it handles Holocaust denial as a fringe theory and cuoltural phenomenon. The September 11 attacks is the historical article similar to the The Holocaust while the conspiracy theories are similar to the holocaust denial.  No doubt that the conspiracy theories articles should be worded with a similar lede to holocaust denial.  But this article should have a brief in passing mention only in a cultural impact section.  It should also mention any articles that refute the nonsense just as the Holocaust article does.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First, thanks to Geometry Guy for stepping up to the plate and giving us a proposal. I'll take a closer look at the proposed text when I get a chance, but I want to make one quick point.  I'd be cautious about which polls we mention.  They are sometimes commissioned by 9/11 conspiracy groups and are sometimes worded in a leading fashion to make it appear that CT are popular than they really are.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whats the poll amongst reputable engineers, experts on controlled demolition, fire investigators and others that have expertise in intelligence and evidence gathering...we never see a poll like that one...all we see is what a random pool (and sometimes not even random, but carefully chosen to get the hoped for results) of people that may have a predetermined bias, not be well enough informed or simply find the CT's more interesting than the relatively bland truth.--MONGO 05:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me try to be completely clear about "Holocaust denial". I am giving it as as exemplar, not because I think it is the closest analogous article to this one, but because I believe the lead does an excellent job. In summary style, the lead of a spin-out article should be a good basis for its treatment in the parent article.
 * Regarding polls, I don't have a strong view on whether we mention one or not. We just need reliably sourced and editorially neutral ways to convey the facts that conspiracy theories exist, are believed by some, refuted and dismissed by experts, and written about and studied by others. Geometry guy 13:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It still stands that the article on The Holocaust is very similiar to the article on September 11 attacks and how the Holocaust article deals with a fringe theory. Everyone knows that there are holocaust deniers.   In fact, Iran develops its foreign policy around it.  However, Holocaust denial as a cultural impact has very little to do with the historical event known as the Holocaust.  As such, it's barely mentioned in the article and receives the same amount of space as a page critical of holcaust denial.  The point being that the deniers/CTers should receive very little attention in the article itself because they add little to the actual historical record.  A "See Also" reference is generous.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can make that argument if you like, but I think you'll have trouble getting editors to agree on how similar/analogous it is and/or whether or not there are better analogues (JFK for example). I don't think the "analogues" route will help us reach consensus, and so I have tried to be clear that this is not my aim. I'd also rather think about the generosity and attentiveness of the article to the reader. WP should be neither a platform for promoting an agenda, nor undermining or debunking one. It is instead all about informing the reader. My view in this case is very simple: an in text link is preferable to a "see also" reference here because it provides the reader with context. That's good for many reasons: for instance, it helps the reader to decide whether to click through and may thus even save them some time. Geometry guy 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From the readers point of view, it does them a grave disservice to have the after the fact conspiracy theories mar the historical account that the article is covering. --DHeyward (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Geometry guy...then don't misuse the article as a platform for spreading nonsense. I have read dozens of physical anthropology books and nary a one of them discusses Bigfoot...even though there are some minor tidbids of evidence to support the extremely unlikely/virtually impossible existence of said creature, that evidence is so meager none of these entire books even mention it...because it is pretty much preposterous...just as the CT's in this case are. Constantly arguing for inclusion of CT's in this article makes you and anyone else doing it have all the appearances of POV pushers.--MONGO 03:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Man this on-sided views are hard to overcome. Keep speaking about POVs but exclusion is the worst   POV  there is (we call it censorship) - how is  advocating omission not a stringent  POV when its clear there has been an signification  influence regardless if you like it or not?.  So in your opinion this conspiracy theories have had no affect on history at all. I would personal say the exact opposite in this case -   President George W. Bush speech about this conspiracy theories is  historical and shows how significant there influence was  on society around the world? So mush so that the  "President of the United States" had to "personally" address the situation to the United Nations. How is this not relevant to the overall story.
 * ""We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror." -- GW Bush speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001"


 * Things like this above sure sounds like something our readers would find interesting and relevant to this overall article.Moxy (talk)


 * Moxy: I'm willing to support a limited reference to 9/11 CT as a compromise but DHeyward and Mongo are making some compelling arguments. You say that their objections are "hard to overcome".  IMHO, they are actually pretty easy to overcome.  All you have to do is:
 * Provide some sources about 9/11 which also cover CT in a serious and prominent manner per WP:ONEWAY.
 * And/Or:
 * Provide some sources written by prominent and respected historians who adhere to 9/11 CT per WP:NPOV.
 * Despite months of requests, neither has ever been fullfilled.
 * As for your second point, how many speeches does a President give over the course of an 8 year presidency? Is it just one speech?  Or hundreds of speeches?  Or thousands?  Do 2-3 sentences of a single speech constitute anything significant in context of all the other speeches Bush gave over his 8 year presidency? I think not.
 * That said, I still support a limited reference to 9/11 CT as a compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Despite months of requests, neither has ever been fullfilled"? this is the circular argument that gets us no were - Sourced have been provide above and at the GA review. Thus far no objects to the sourced have been presented unless its a case that not all see google book pages so cant comment? What should be asked is - regardless of who said what - is what is the impact of the retarded CTs on the overall story. Bush's speech I believe is relevant to the argument of some inclusion because it proves the point it is  mentioned  in a small way even at the heights levels of government. I keep hearing well its only a sentence or two or its not covered extensively or by the right people. What many seem to be missing is that it is covered as you all keep saying in its small amount. So why is it not covered here in the same small way with the same resolve? A for WP:ONEWAY ..ok lets not inject the CT ideas into the article. WP:NPOV.. ok lets mention them in there context not inserts there views.. those were easy to over come. Lets make it very simple...."Although reject by mainstream academic communities, 9 11 conspiracy theories that arouse soon after the attacks  have been prevalent in all media forms. (5 refs from above here] Simple to the point while giving our readers context on the link there about to click on.Moxy (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point about the context of CT within the overall historical fact of the September 11 attacks. They are irrelevant to the historical event.  Just as Holocaust denial is irrelevant to the actual Holocaust.  The fact that it evolved after the fact is not pertinent to the event itself.  Yes, Bush addressed the anti-semitic aspects of Israeli involvement CT (and it makes the analogy of Holocaust/holocaust denial even more pertinent), but it doesn't change the historical record.  No credible source has even considered CT as a possible explanation.  This is the fundamental difference between this article and the assassination articles where probes into possible conspirators were very prevalent.  In fact, this article follows the credible "conspiracy theory" that there were 19 hijackers that trained together with funding from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.  That "conspiracy theory" is credible and is covered in depth.  No other conspiracy theory has proved credible or worth mentioning given NPOV, One  Way or Undue weight.  A link in a "see also" section regarding cultural impact is a possibility but anything more gives it credence beyond its actual validity.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on saying anyhting else after this because it's not worth getting blocked or banned over for which i have already been warned by someone named "Nuclear Warfare". Just to be redundant which is par for the course :Albert Stubblebine is a retired Major General and former head of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command which is part of the National Security Agency he also holds an advanced degree in chemical engineering and is an expert in photographic analysis. He is not a crank, a wack or a fringe theorist. He has stated emphatically that the official version of events doesn't wash with the evidence. Bill Manning served as editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, a respected magazine for the trade for 15 years, he is still currently employed in the field as editor-in-chief of Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment magazine. Making crank allegations would not be in his best interest for employment, yet he stated right off the bat that the investigation was comprimised, $ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION . These are just two many reputable professionals with the credentials to back themselves up.


 * Maybe it's just me but how is it that people who use pseudonyms with no veifiable credentials feel they have more knowledge and get to dictate what appears in the first place in the search engine on the subject? How is that an individual who calls himself MONGO from Montana "a genuine American redneck" gets to control the page, he is self-appointed expert over formatting, images, content etc., yet if you try and contribute those who don't tow the line get treated to rude, obnoxious and impertinent comments like "idiotic notions" etc. If you respond in kind or if you try levity you get threatened with a block I have been all over Montana, it's a beautiful state, I noticed you can't see Lower Manhattan from there, I also noticed that there is not much to do there but they do have a lot of cattle and also sheep. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Manning's complaint is part of a longstanding concern on the part of fire services about the behavior of lightweight floor trusses and their performance in fire scenarios. This has nothing whatever to do with conspiracy theories: it has to do with the fact that such structures rapidly destabilize in fires, since their surface is extensive relative to their mass. They were popular in the 1970s (i.e., the WTC) and are not used very much anymore, but are of obvious concern for those who have to fight fires in such buildings, whether they're low or high-rise. There have been many serious concerns raised in hindsight concerning appropriate choices of structure, fireproofing and egress arrangements in tall buildings following 9/11; lightweight floor trusses have been a sore point from a time before 9/11 and Manning's point arises from a legitimate pre-existing concern. There is no connection to conspiracies or controlled demolition.   Acroterion   (talk)   15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as editors continue to blur distinctions, obfuscate, go round in circles and personalize issues, there will be no progress. Moxy has made an alternative proposal to mine, which could be copyedited down to "Although rejected by mainstream scholarship, 9/11 conspiracy theories that arose soon after the attacks have been prevalent in the media". It has the merit of being inherently shorter than my approach, but also provides less information. What do editors prefer? Geometry guy 11:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not true that conspiracy theories have not been considered as a possible explanation. While controlled demolition has not been covered much, theories about foreign involvement of U.S. allies have been fairly prominent, such as those stemming from Sibel Edmond's accusations about corruption in various executive departments, intelligence agencies, and federal law enforcement. See the following:
 * So, it is incorrect to say conspiracy theories have not been seriously considered. Also, I should say the allegations of Israeli involvement have a unique significance to the story as this was the reaction of some in the Arab and Muslim community as soon as the attacks were blamed on al-Qaeda. See the following: --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording
It's entirely reasonable to say the article is about the attacks, and the conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the attacks themselves. They are social/psychological/political (briefly 'cultural') phenomena. 9/11 conspiracy theories is linked at all only because a consensus wanted a link in See also. As an alternative to that see-also link, I don't oppose mentioning them in a paragraph about cultural effects; but that means we write a paragraph about cultrual effects, not gin up a way to mention conspiracy theories in the article. It's a worrying artifact of that process that we seem to be writing that paragraph inside out, starting with a sentence on conspiracy theories and as an afterthought dashing off a paragraph to put it in. For now, here's something based on AQFK's mentioned above, including something like Geometry guy's and Moxy's proposals:


 * The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. Nearly every area of popular culture has been affected the attacks and reveals how these events influenced ordinary people. Immediate responses to 9/11 included nesting, higher church attendence, and increased expressions of patriotism such as the flying of flags. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play-lists, and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks. Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in books, films, popular songs, and television. Already running shows such as The West Wing and 24, as well as programs developed after 9/11 such as Rescue Me and Lost reflect post-9/11 cultural concerns. 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

Of course, Citation needed. Tom Harrison Talk 12:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Latest draft text (AQFK, G'guy. MoxyTom):


 * Support...and be BOLD and add it all in...references for this should be easy to locate...even 4-5 references just for that CT mention should be easy to add.MONGO 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inclusion under any circumstance violates NPOV and ONEWAY. This article should cover the attacks themselves, not the ridiculous conspiracy theories, and no independent reliable source has connected the two topics in a serious and credible way. Per ONEWAY, the bizarro conspiracy theories should not be mentioned in this article - at all. If one wants to write an Aftermath of September 11 attacks article, a short sentence or two may be valid... But not here.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * continue to support after update. As all can see 5 out of the 7 section here is about the aftermath of the event despite  assertion to the contrary.Moxy (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Adding something along the lines Tom has suggested would be a gigantic step forwards. And as Moxy points out above in reply to Toa's objection, the bulk of the article isn't actually about the events of the day anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It doesn't matter, that can be solved by a rewrite. That red herring really doesn't work when you look at NPOV and ONEWAY rather than try and distract from it - ONEWAY clearly prohibits even the mere mention of CTs in this article.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  16:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, but not in mine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I don't appreciate being called a "nut". You and MONGO have consistently tried to claim that those arguing for the inclusion of a mention of conspiracy theories must automatically believe them, which is a gross distortion of what's been said. I very much doubt that anyone commenting here gives conspiracy theories much, if any, credence, but we're writing for our readers, not putting forwards only our own pov. Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus...I didn't see your name in the discussion.MONGO 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not like you haven't ever said anything similar, Malleus?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a step in the right direction if you could see your way to keeping to the issue at hand rather than indulging your distaste for those commenting. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who seems to drag any discussion into some way to fluff your ego, not us. --Tarage (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And there you go again, just can't keep your big mouth shut. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Implying you ever could. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be better wording in my opinion and somewhat more useful. If you are wary about the term significant minority I would suggest you look at the article on 9-11 polls. Right now I do not have a good idea of how to rewrite the rest, but I think with some improvement Tom's suggestion would be good to put in the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC) --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, with some enthusiasm. This is the way forward.  In particular, I like the phrasing of the last sentence.  Thanks Tom for taking this on. Antandrus  (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reword as there are lots of issues I can see with how it is written. As for the last sentence on the conspiracy theories I would propose wording more like this: "While having negligible support within the scientific community, conspiracy theories relating to the attacks have been adopted by a significant minority of the general population as well as celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Jesse Ventura."
 * No thanks.MONGO 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your objection?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally not a fan of inserting any names.Moxy (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And neither am I. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Names imply support. The entire 'reword' is designed to imply support from academia, the general population, and celebrities. No thanks, this is even worse than the first one.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really wishing  we get more  history editors involed in this talk.Moxy (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tom's version of that sentence also includes the term "negligible support" with regards to academia so the accusation that said wording was "designed" by me to do anything is empty. As for implying support, there are in fact people who support these theories you know. That isn't just made up. Mentioning Charlie Sheen and Jesse Ventura isn't liable to draw a lot of positive attention either, that insertion was more because I think it makes the sentence more relevant to the question of cultural impact as these are two well-known celebrities who have garnered a lot of attention for the conspiracy theories in popular culture.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And I opposed that one as well. Listing names only serves to give the false impression of support - it serves no other purpose. The fact that people support them is not important in the least - people support moon landing conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, and Paul McCartney death theories too. Fact is, some people are bound support pretty much anything - but whether or not Jessie Ventura supports them is irrelevant to this article, as are the CTs. We don't list names of people that aren't denialists about 9/11 on this page, we shouldn't do it with the denialists either.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about this?:"Despite negligible support within the academic community, conspiracy theories relating to the attacks have been adopted by a small but significant minority of the general population, including several celebrities."
 * As for the second one, it still violates ONEWAY and NPOV. It is still designed to give the false impression of support for the denialists.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except it does have supporters. There is no false impression of anything, because it is technically true that there are people who support them. Tom's wording says the theories became "social phenomena" and that wording is not only bizarre, but actually has a somewhat misleading if not prejudicial nature to it. The words "social phenomena" make me think of trifling things like pop-culture icons, internet memes, and toy fads.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that mentioning advocates is unhelpful and pointless here, but I'm glad there is agreement on the word "negligible", which expresses "essentially zero" without saying "literally zero". Geometry guy 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support I support this proposal in the spirit of compromise, but it's on the condition that this isn't be abused to used as a platform for advocacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was ever used as a platform for advocacy then I'd be manning the barricades right alongside you; this is about comprehensiveness as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about you Malleus, it's all the drive-by's who might try to do that. Maybe we can add a hidden comment saying something like, "STOP.  Please do not expand or remove 9/11 conspiracy theories from the article.  The verbiage being used by our article was arrived at after months of discussion and consensus-building.  If you think something should be changed, please start a discussion on the article talk page.  Thank you."  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think drive-by's stand a snowball's chance to influence the article's overall position, but we should do what we can to maximize stability and make maintenance as straightforward as possible. Geometry guy 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, with thanks to Tom for his efforts. I've already explained why WP:ONEWAY arguments potentially confuse issues (we are mentioning the cultural phenomenon of CTs here, not a particular CT as an alternative fringe account of events) and I believe several editors have understood what I have been trying to say, so I won't repeat myself in detail. Even if my motives are still misunderstood by some (I push and have always pushed for Wikipedia's neutral point of view, because I think it is one of the project's most magnificent principles), I regard it is valuable that the article has editors who will argue robustly against potential future abuses.
 * I agree with Tom and others that it is not ideal that we need to clear this hurdle before dealing with other improvements, and the accompanying paragraph will almost certainly require some revision, so that it is solidly encyclopedic content with maximum stability, and does not become a "9/11 in popular culture" magnet (Tom cautioned against this in a previous post, and I agree). However, it is necessary to put some text in place, because the whole CT issue has become a barrier to collegial discussion about improving the article to GA and beyond. Support for crossing this hurdle and moving on to the next challenge is very much to be welcomed and I welcome it. Geometry guy 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'd change the following sentence:

Nearly every area of popular culture has been affected the attacks and reveals how these events influenced ordinary people.


 * Instead of "popular culture", say "American culture" or just plain "culture". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd also favor reworking that, perhaps more substantially (modulo sourcing) e.g., "The wide range of cultural effects/impacts of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people". Geometry guy 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I also have no idea what "nesting" refers to, or why it is significant, but that is likely ignorance on my part.


 * @Geometry Guy:
 * Yes, I like your wording.
 * It's poor wording on my part. Nesting refers to a trend that emphasized home life and time spent with family after the attacks.  BTW, most of that paragraph is sourced to September 11 in popular culture: a guide.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree we should replace "popular culture" with something that better expresses the point. Tom Harrison Talk 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - could also change "popular culture" to "life in the United States" (or "life in the western world" if there is references for that). Absolutely oppose this if it in any ways turns into a springboard for what The Devil&#39;s Advocate has proposed.  This is not an opening to expand CT or pop culture references.  There are other articles for that.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to my proposed rewording of Tom's suggestion or the comment I made above this subsection responding to your claims about conspiracy theories not being considered by credible sources?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --DHeyward (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I asked you about two separate things so that answer isn't really clear.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support so long that this is the final addition. We had this same talk when we included the link, and it already feels like we're inching back towards undue weight territory. I want something substantial in writing that pushing anything more than this is POV pushing and will not be humored. --Tarage (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say its a step forward as per the good article reassessment that for some odd reason was ongoing during the last "See also" link talk. Moxy (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea of barring discussion about changes to make the article more comprehensive on information relevant to the subject. My opinion is that a paragraph in the aftermath section a la the OKC Bombing article is the best way to deal with this aspect of the subject. Suggesting that seeking to apply a similar change to this article should automatically be derided as POV-pushing and given the silent treatment is not appropriate.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to disagree, but these are the terms of my conditional support. I am sick and tired of this talkpage being a battlefield for single purpose accounts to try to promote more inclusion of conspiracy theories. If we implement this change, I want a line drawn in the sand for them. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And who are these SPAs of whom you speak? Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page archives are filled with them, as is the page listing the users topic banned under the discretionary sanctions as well. Next time do your own research. --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Somewhat ironic Tarage, given the fervour that you and several others have displayed here in pushing your own pov and threatening those who do not share it. But the entire structure of this article needs extensive work. This is just a first small step in the right direction, and to unilaterally preclude further discussion as the article develops from being a memorial into a proper account of the events of that day, their background and their aftermath is just plain silly. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have to wonder how much you would have us include Malleus. A paragraph? A section? Several pictures? It's quite clear that you have no understanding of NPOV, and have made it your mission to pester random pages and people out of spite. I can't think of any other reasonable excuse for the venom you regularly excrete into discussions where it isn't required or welcome. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that you have no idea how to write a decent article, or how to control that big mouth of yours. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll control mine when you control yours. --Tarage (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is time for you to stop now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it incredibly hypocritical that you believe you can ignore civility and then expect it from other users. If you have a problem with my conduct, feel free to report it. However, all that would do is draw attention to your own violations. --Tarage (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it incredibly hypocritical that you believe you can ignore incivility, as if it doesn't apply to you. Now button it, before someone does it for you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. --Tarage (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated proposal I've updated the proposal to include the hidden comment, Geometry Guy's rewording of the second sentence, and I replaced "nesting" with "increased focus on home life and time spent with family". Here's how the proposal currently stands:


 * The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people. Immediate responses to 9/11 included increased focus on home life and time spent with family, higher church attendence, and increased expressions of patriotism such as the flying of flags. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play-lists, and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks. Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in books, films, popular songs, and television. Already running shows such as The West Wing and 24, as well as programs developed after 9/11 such as Rescue Me and Lost reflect post-9/11 cultural concerns.  9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians.


 * Most of this can be sourced to September 11 in popular culture: a guide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * continue to support after update - again - thanks for directing us in the right wayMoxy (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * New proposal I came up with a somewhat different rewording that I think generally improves the readability and style of the paragraph:
 * The 9/11 attacks had a significant effect on society and culture. Its impact on culture extended to most aspects of life. Immediate responses to 9/11 included a greater focus on home life and time spent with family, higher church attendance, and increased expressions of patriotism such as the flying of flags. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play-lists. Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in books, films, popular songs, and television. Already running shows such as The West Wing and 24, as well as programs developed after 9/11 such as Rescue Me and Lost reflect post-9/11 cultural concerns. Conspiracy theories about the attacks emerged almost immediately, despite negligible support for such views within the mainstream academic community.
 * One change in my proposal is the removal of the bit about recording artists, since the next sentence mentions "popular songs" alongside books and films.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with removing "and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks." and "popular songs". That might not be a bad idea.  Songs and music seem to be crap-magnets.  But I don't think it's a good idea to come up with a competing wording.  That might have the effect of splitting people's support with neither one gaining consensus.  I'd rather you just suggest each change individually and then we can modify Tom's proposal accordingly.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where popular songs is inserted it would not really create an issue (listing a bunch of different songs in the middle of a list would annoy enough people that it would never be able to pass), but the part about recording artists was redundant.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would concur and support removing the clause "recording artists wrote songs about the attacks", as a potential pop culture magnet. Geometry guy 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Geometry Guy: What about "popular songs", too? I would remove that as well.  @Everyone: Does any one else want to weigh in on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a particular reason to exclude songs from a list, but we could rephrase "books, films, popular songs, and television". At the moment it uses the generic singular only for "television" and plural count nouns for the rest, which suggests a copyedit in any case. How about "film, television, music and literature"? Geometry guy 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Geometry Guy: "film, television, music and literature" is fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay - we could be ready to make these two tweaks to the draft above (with a couple of diffs to this thread, so anyone concerned by the change is fully informed). Such a change barely impinges on most of the discussion in this section. Geometry guy 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there's a chronological problem with "Conspiracy theories about the attacks emerged almost immediately, despite negligible support for such views within the mainstream academic community". It's not correct to tie the emergence of such theories with the lack of academic support. So how about something like "Conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks emerged almost immediately, but have received negligible support within the mainstream academic community."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2011


 * I think we're better with what's just above by AQFK: 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians. Tom Harrison Talk 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That works as well, but the version I was responding to doesn't. There are already too many versions of this proposal to keep track: we need to have one, and work on refining that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Malleus. Having multiple proposals is confusing things.  @Devil's Advocate: Can you please strike thru your proposal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not something I am going to do. We are, to use what Malleus said, refining an initial draft proposal. Part of that means putting out alternative wording for the overall passage in order to drive discussion.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why can't you just discuss each change like everyone else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had several ideas and proposing them all as individual changes just does not seem as effective as proposing them as part of a whole.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I should point out one of my issues with your wording there is that the use of the word "expert" and the singling-out of specific academic professions might lead readers to think there is broader support among academia than there is in reality. Not all academics are considered experts and there are plenty of other fields of academic study relevant to the case, but the negligible level of support does not change much, if at all.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel somewhat responsible for the list of professions. How about something like "negligible support for such views among experts and/or within mainstream scholarship"? Geometry guy 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "despite negligible evidence for such views" cited to one of the many reliable sources? Otherwise we might do best to go with what we have and let the normal process of editing refine it later. Tom Harrison Talk 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Going with "despite negligible evidence for such views" sounds good to me. This roundabout needs to be stopped. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me too: in terms of editorial input, less may be more here. However, I also agree with Tom that the normal editing process can take care of small refinements in the longer term. That's the best way to ensure minor disagreements don't spin us off track on improving the article. Geometry guy 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "despite negligible evidence for such views" sounds like there is some evidence for CT. What evidence is that?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "lack of evidence" or something would be more accurate; "negligible" was held over from the other wording. The current proposed text is up above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except, arguably there is evidence and that is part of the problem. Talking about "negligible evidence" is going to cause a whole dispute over what counts as evidence and whether that evidence is "negligible" or not. People are going to insist on there being eyewitness evidence, video evidence, and even circumstantial evidence supporting the conspiracy theories. Maybe editors not wanting to open the article up even more to conspiracies will insist on only covering physical evidence, but there are going to be arguments about that as well with talk about nano-thermite chips some guys supposedly found perhaps topping it by crying how NIST did not base its decision on physical evidence. Not to mention all sorts of people are going to come in here having the same thought you just did and insist on changing "negligible" to "no" to protect us from the "wackos" further aggravating the situation as many conspiracists will feel more like they need to include their evidence in the article to counter the claims that there isn't any. People who reluctantly supported the inclusion may well begin changing their minds as a result of the consequent edit wars (lots of "I told you so" or "this is what I was afraid of" remarks) and, well, the article will be right back where it started or worse.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. The word "negligible" is appropriate when referring to support by scholars and experts, but opens up a can of worms in connection with evidence. On reflection, I prefer that we focus on support, as in the current text: what is believed is easier to factualize (as we must) than what is "true", and WP should be pointing readers to what the most reliable expert sources believe. Geometry guy 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence --->support change is a good move.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This one issue, and the attitude behind it, has been a show stopper. Hopefully once this addition has been made attention can be turned to the serious issue of the article's overall structure. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be worse in so many ways. I already gave a different proposed wording above. My proposal above used "despite negligible support for such views within the mainstream academic community" in place of what you proposed. I used "academic" because I felt that did the best job of covering all the various professions as opposed to a term like "scholar" that isn't necessarily seen as applying to engineers and the like.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. What's worse is this endless jawing, get something into the main space. It can be tweaked there while the article is hopefully being improved from a memorial to a dispassionate account of the events of that day: the background, the timeline, and the aftermath. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be more than willing to support that as a temporary matter so long as the conspiracy sentence uses the wording in the version as of this comment (I may not be fond of it but it is still better than what Tom just suggested), or wording similar to what I suggested.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * May I suggest to you both that patience is a virtue? We should give editors time to respond to the proposed change in any case. One step at a time. Geometry guy 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I created a diff with my Sandbox to show what I changed.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest keeping track of the latest draft at the top, just after Tom's original. It is more important to agree on a text in rough outline than to argue over the details. However, if during the course of discussion, there appears to be some broad support for a minor change, we can update the latest draft so that it best reflects current thinking and consensus. Geometry guy 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the present draft. Easily sourced and in due proportion.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI For what it's worth we will be without The Devil's Advocate for the next 30 days. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the current draft. Reasonable and can sourced per policy. I hope we do not find this slope slippery. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with one small note -- the television show 24 did not start until November of 2001; its premiere was actually delayed (possibly reshot, I forget) because the plotline had similarities. I'm not saying all that should be mentioned, but I'm just throwing in that referring to 24 as "already running" is not 100% accurate.
 * Also, if we're talking "cultural impact", maybe it might be worth some sort of note about how there were a few weeks where people were asking "Is comedy dead?" and then shows like Letterman, then The Daily Show, then SNL, all came back and started forging a new path. (That's obviously not encyclopedic language, just an idea, but I don't mean to divert the vote, so I'm sorry if this isn't the way to bring it up.)

ThatGuamGuy (talk)ThatGuamGuy
 * @ThatGuamGuy: Are you sure? Our article on 24 lists November 6, 2001 as the date the first episode aired: 24 (season 1).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose sentence on CT in the proposal above. Available source do not allow us to conclude that the information that (some) conspiracy theories emerged almost immediately would be the single most important characteristics of them. Rather, overviews of CTs highlight that they have evolved over time. I would prefer something closer to the first version, simply giving the information that 9/11 CTs have become a cultural phenomenon. In addition, the text should mention that 9/11 CTs are supported by many people internationally, and by a significant minority in the U.S. The latter aspect has been the focus of a number of articles about CTs (TIME magazine etc.). We should add the statement about the general consensus in the scientific community along the line proposed by Geometry guy. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, the CT sentence in the current proposed text ("latest version" at the top of this thread) is "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians." Geometry guy 01:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this well-written paragraph though with a couple of minor points. First ThatGuamGuy makes a good point that 24 was not "already running". Second, the List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks seems to be as much or more about arts and entertainment that avoided any reference to the attacks, however indirect, than about arts and entertainment that used them as a plot point or a backdrop. Maybe the answer is simply to remove the link, or maybe there's a better solution. I think these should really be fixed. One more suggestion is that the third sentence could begin "Within the United States", though this is just a suggestion, and if it's distracting from achieving consensus, please ignore it.--Rsm77 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * continue to support after update - This is an overview article that should cover (in due weight) ever aspect of the topic that has been published over and over. A simple mention that CT's are a "social phenomena" is in the right context without going into details about who said what, were and why. Much better then a "See also" link that stands out like  a sore thumb. Moxy (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment...I don't think naming particular shows on the tele is really helpful. It just comes off as advertising. Even the limited movies made about the event should probably be best left out.--MONGO 01:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable enough suggestion. Also, it my preempt any potential content disputes over which TV shows get mentioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion break
Discussion now appears to have fizzled out. It seems to me that we have made progress and found some consensus, and that we are now in a position to implement the proposed text and remove the see also. Of course, we have to decide where to put the text. Since the overall structure of the article has been a topic of discussion, this may be subject to further review anyway. Looking at the current draft, it seems to me that the end of the "Aftermath" section might work best for now. Comments? Geometry guy 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with locating the paragraph in Aftermath; that should fit in Cultural impact, Aude's proposed outline #2. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason its gone quiet here is because the CT's are going to get their mention...I think its also time to mention the festivities that erupted all over the middle east and even in some other places, where people who hate the US had parades and parties screaming "death to the infidels"...see, those events DID happen, but the wackos want us to mention what DIDN'T happen and avoid what they think it is controversial because it may hurt their feelings. What a sham...what a blatant lie...what a watered down softcore hypnotic and sterile version of the truth. You want to FIX this article, then put all the facts in...MONGO 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks who understand Wikipedia better than I do can move forward with this idea if they like it. Cla68 pointed out that "a small group of editors who frequent this article have experienced some difficulty with collaborating, cooperating, and compromising with other editors."  The idea is for the creation of a new policy tag anyone can use to suggest that there is a small band of editors who have this kind of difficulty, and direct readers to the talk page where they can examine the issues.  Usually, such a group signifies a controversy about which they care a great deal, and the more eyes on it, the better. Dscotese (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dscotese: What does your comment have to do with the discussion above? We're looking for an appropriate place to put a passage arrived at through extensive discussion, collaboration, cooperation and compromise between editors with varying points of view, not creating some new tag to highlight something that a bunch of editors have worked hard to avoid here.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The consensus in this matter seems quite clear, so should someone go and place the most recent draft paragraph in its own subsection under Aftermath titled Cultural impact? Silver  seren C 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Made a few stylistic modifications to the first two sentences and removed the bit about recording artists writing songs since there seemed to be support for that change.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just remembered that there weren't refs included in the above wording. Could someone else mind inserting the necessary citations?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work by all taking this forward. A couple of refs have now been added, but more are needed. For the last sentence, there are many possible references (more than 10 have been listed in various places), but I think we need about three to cover the various angles, and selecting them is tricky. Getting the referencing right is a priority now. Geometry guy 20:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)