Talk:September 11 attacks

Time to eliminate the Conspiracy Theories section

The conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 are just as preposterous as the Moon landing conspiracy theories which in the article Apollo 11 are relegated to a simple link in the See also section...at Barack Obama...there is no easily found link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories...both the Apollo moon landing CT and the Obama citizenship CTs are, like the 9/11 CTs most definitely the textbook definition of WP:FRINGE and in keeping with precedents at the Apollo 11 article as well as at the Barack Obama article, conspiracy theories should be relegated to a simple SEE ALSO link or not mentioned at all...this website is not a platform for the fringe to promote their version of reality...there is precedent in arbcom cases to ensure this website does not permit advocacy of fringe science or Pseudoscience at the detriment of real science...see:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience...in another ongoing case where fringe theory POV pushing is also soon to be shown to be unacceptable one can read the proposed decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Proposed decision. The 9/11 CTs have no basis in fact, are defintely fringe and should, as is done with similar preposterous CTs such as at the Apollo 11 and Barack Obama articles, be relegated to a see also link or no link at all.--MONGO 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep section The section does not advocate any fringe theories. It reports about the fact that these theories exist. Clearly, as evidenced by numerous reports in reliable sources, the existence of these theories is a notable fact. Please do not accuse other of POV pushing, when you yourself have expressed your own point of view and have disparaged other peoples' point of view repeatedly on this page.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as I would like to see the CT section go away, I think that its pervasiveness and longevity give it enough WP:WEIGHT to stay for now. Soxwon (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

In a practical, immediate way, one sees the limits of the so-called “extended mind” clearly in the mob-made Wikipedia, the perfect product of that new vast, supersized cognition: when there’s easy agreement, it’s fine, and when there’s widespread disagreement on values or facts, as with, say, the origins of capitalism, it’s fine, too; you get both sides. The trouble comes when one side is right and the other side is wrong and doesn’t know it. The Shakespeare authorship page and the Shroud of Turin page are scenes of constant conflict and are packed with unreliable information... Our trouble is not the over-all absence of smartness but the intractable power of pure stupidity, and no machine, or mind, seems extended enough to cure that.

— Adam Gopnik, "How the Internet gets inside us"; New Yorker, 14 February 2011

IMO, a "see also" link would be sufficient. Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am surprised to read the above statement from you, a sysop on the project. That these theories exists is reliably sourced, and certainly not an extraordinary claim, as we probably all agree that they exist; the section does not make any claims that are not backed by what the large majority of reliable sources have reported repeatedly.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are sysops expected to be more supportive of conspiracy theories? What does my sysop status have to do with this? I'm giving my opinion, I've done no edit warring, and I'd appreciate if it you'd avoid tossing red herrings onto the path. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with User:MONGO, and he makes a good point when comparison with other articles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree the theories are preposterous, but are reported in reliable sources. Perhaps some of the detail could be cut down, but eliminating the section violates Wikipedia core principles, and I'm not convinced it's a good idea. MONGO's argument could be used, for instance, to delete the Chiropractic article, as there are no reliable sources that it works, although there are reliable sources that it exists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arthur...unlike the chiropractic article, we have known facts about the event/issue. The only time reputable magazines and similar report about the 9/11 CT is to poke fun at them...I think just sending them elsewhere is best.--MONGO 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#September_11_attacks.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's time we banned all those that routinely use these articles to platform 9/11 CTs...as arbcom has made it clear can and should be done.--MONGO 03:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This comment seems to shed some light on the motivations of ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs).  Cs32en Talk to me  02:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please dont assume a casual humor of about Banned Socker User:Freedom5000 has anything to do with content issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that the section seems appropriately weighted in the given context. I too wish that all these theories would go away, but as wikipedia is about neutrality, My POV is of no concern. As to the juxtaposition against the Moon Landing Hoax theory, the two are not weighted the same in the overview of history as their are far fewer people who believe in this conspiracy theory than the other.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - The conspiracies are very widespread, and abundantly documented by reliable secondary sources. It is not our job to censor WP, but just to report the facts. That the theories are considered ridiculous by the vast majority of mainstream sources can be clearly stated in the Conspiracy section. If a reader comes to this article seeking to learn about the validity fo the conspiracy theories, is it not better to explain than to conceal? --Noleander (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• I support a (minimal) inclusion as well. It's a fact that these conspiracy theories and conspiracy pushers exist and have affected the dialogue over the attack, and the disputation here is a reminder of it. We surely ought to avoid undue weight, but we should acknowledge that part of the cultural effects spawned by the attack. As a side point, remember that Freedom5000 is community banned. If you see any edits that obviously come from that individual, you can just revert without giving any thought to the matter, and certainly without the need to feel stress about it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Noleander and Gavia make a valid argument...but my thinking is that to progress and get this article to FA level, it needs some massive trimming and since the CTs surrounding this are so preposterously ridiculous, that is as good a place as any.--MONGO 03:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If your goal is to reduce the size of the article, the best solution is to follow WP:Summary Style guideline. In other words, every major section in this article already has a "main" sub-article (based on WP:Content fork). Thus, each main section could be reduced to, say, 3 to 12 sentences, and if the user wants more detail, they click on the "main" link that is present at the top of each section. To pick a random example: the "Memorials" section is rather large, yet there is an entire article dedicated to that topic. --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Precisely....been there...the article should discuss primarily the event itself. And: elimination of fringe is paramount.--MONGO 04:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that the conspiracy theories should be eliminated, but that is just your opinion. Other editors think they are an important, if small, aspect of the overall topic. Just as a discussion of evolution should mention creationism. Maybe you should start a survey to solicit a broader range of opinions. --Noleander (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A better example is Origin of the Universe#Religious interpretations. Evolution is a concept, not an event. As such, it has nothing to do with creationism. But this article is not titled "Official account of the 9/11 attacks". Its topic are the September 11 attacks, their background, and their aftermath, including the reception.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment MONGO, you HAVE to acknowledge the existence of a significant number of people who believe something, even if they are wrong. At one point in time, a significant portion of the people in the United States believed that the US gov't wasn't revealing the whole truth. That's several million people in the United States alone, not something that can simply be swept aside as fringe. I agree, they're completely, but there are enough of them to warrant inclusion. Soxwon (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding the motivation of getting this article to FA status. FA is a good goal, but is not the overriding priority for every article in WP. The top priority, instead, is getting good, reliable information to readers. FA status is just a tool, a path, to provide good information. I've seen articles that had good information removed because an editor "bull-dozed" the article to FA status. FA is a means to an end, not the end itself. Deleting a section that has been in the article for 5+ years (!) is something that should be carefully deliberated. Post the idea on the Talk page, then wait a week. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • FA represents potential and even the best FA's always have some room for improvement...the process to get an article to FA might just bring in many others that are generally not interested in routine editing..the prose, format and outline would improve during the process and the end result would be a decidedly superior article.--MONGO 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In response to those who support a "minimal" inclusion, our experience is that such sections grow and require continuous effort to keep them "minimal". With no inclusion of Moon landing and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in corresponding articles, both solid precedents, I see no good argument for inclusion of conspiracy theories in this article. If anything, the case for inclusion in this article is weaker than for those examples. Since there is no single September 11 conspiracy theory, but rather several, with variations, that frustrate attempts to write a succinct summary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: MONGO (talk · contribs) has informed Wsiegmund (talk · contribs) about this debate.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps b/c 9/11 conspiracy theorists are a world-wide phenomena with multiple countries holding millions of believers. Again, I'm not saying this makes them right, but you can't simply ignore them. Soxwon (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories exists. It is manifest that we do not ignore conspiracy theorists. In this article, a "see also" item suffices, in my judgment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I cant even believe that this is an issue. The section is only two small paragraphs making up little more than 1% of the article and even less if the theory rejection sentence in the section is excluded from the count. The text goes no further than stating that the theories exist so claims that the mere existence of the section is POV pushing can not be supported. If WP:UNDUE was strictly followed the section could be even larger and not to mention them at all is indisputably a violation of that policy. Then there is the issue of how deletion will be used by prominent theorists to support their claims. I totally reject POV pushing from both sides of the issue.Wayne (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Those that have previously supported having this section and even expanding it are likely to be the ones most likely to be in a state of disbelief. Thanks for bringing up UNDUE...since the CTs are bogus, mentioning them here breaks precedent with what we find in the Barack Obama article where his birth certificate/citizenship questions aren't even discussed at all...yet polls show that as many as 35% of U.S. citizens have various degrees of doubt as to whether Obama is a U.S. citizen. However, like the Obama citizenship issues, the 9/11 CTs are based on misinformation, wrongful misrepresentation, and in the worst cases, simple lies.--MONGO 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, may I point your attention to WP:OTHERSTUFF and thus why your argument about the birthers doesn't apply? Soxwon (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Soxwon: I don't believe that WP:OTHERSTUFF applies and let me explain why. The general principle of OTHERSTUFF is that just because something is done incorrectly in another article, that doesn't justify the same mistake in a second article. This makes perfect sense. However, in the case of Barack Obama, this article is a Featured Article. Featured articles go through an extensive review process for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style. Only about 1 in a thousand articles ever reaches this level. So the fact that Obama ommits birthers is strong evidence that this is how articles are supposed to be written. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama was promoted to Featured Article status in 2004. At that time, the birth certificate theories were not notable. Therefore, your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFF could not be applied in this case because of the FA status of the article on Barack Obama is invalid.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama was promoted to WP:FA status on August 12, 2004. Since then, it has undergone seven featured article reviews, the most recent was completed on March 16th, 2010. Go to the talk page and expand the "Article milestones" section at the top of the page to see for yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said. However, looking at the last three reviews, none of them were substantial. The review requests seem to be primarily motivated by the personal political views of the respective editors, especially the last review request of March 16th, 2010.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If Wikipedia and the Internet had existed in 1951, I'm pretty sure we'd have the same issues with the Pearl Harbor article. I support minimal inclusion, perhaps as small as a simple section hatnote. As Wseigmund points out, this presents the problem of creeping growth. Events of this kind inevitably produce conspiracy theories: Pearl Harbor (controversy section and link), the Kennedy assassination (brief mention and link), TWA 800 (likewise). Similar issues plague Shakespeare authorship, homeopathy, autism, the MMR vaccine ... It's human nature, and Wikipedia is a magnet for those who would promote their theories. It's also exhausting for long-term editors to try to maintain some balance, and the issue discussed here reflects some of that frustration. The 9/11 conspiracy spectrum runs the gamut from a reasonable "we don't know everything that happened" to the notion that everybody in Lower Manhattan on 9/11/01 saw, heard and felt holographic 767s. We can't hope to address that in this article, and it has a good home elsewhere that does a reasonable job of presenting the spectrum of views. As a cautionary example, the Kennedy article was, for instance, was a GA, but has been worn down by conspiracy enthusiasts. The talk page there makes this one look tame. Acroterion _(talk) 15:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, but the arguments presented for deleting the material so far are "it's stopping it from getting to FA" or "its really hard to fight off those wacko nut editors". Those are not good reasons. Here is the kind of argument that I would find persuasive: "Of the top 20 non-fiction works on the 9/11 attacks, only one mentions the conspiracy theories. Of the 820,000 news articles on the topic, only 0.1% mention the conspiracies." That would help us assess the relative significance of that section. --Noleander (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia...we're better than other sources. We set the standard. Look at the archives this article has...how many kb's in those do you think were really dedicated to working to make this article "better"...the vast majority of the archives show clear evidence of POV pushing by swarms of CTers...many repeat offenders...people like myself have tried for 5 years or more to keep their wacky notions at bay....and this article languishes because no one can surmount a real effort to make it better when so much time is wasted dealing with nutburgers.--MONGO 01:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

For German Amazon bestsellers on the September 11 attacks, it's 7 out of 20, for Amazon France, 9 out of 20.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion and expand the section. Many people do not believe in the official story about what happened and there is a lot of information devoted to this. Very notable subject. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is precisely why it has its very own article, allowing for whatever level of detail is appropriate, as do all of the articles cited above. The parent article should not become a validation of fringe theories by undue weight. Acroterion _(talk) 17:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So what is the problem with having a section here summarizing the content of the main article and linking to the main article? Thats not a "validation of fringe theories by undue weight". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm arguing for at most retaining the status quo, which is a summary section linking to the main article, consistent with the examples I cited. I don't endorse expansion in the parent article, which is what your initial comment advocated. Acroterion _(talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep section. The section on conspiracy theories is small and neutrally worded. I don't see any problem with it. On a personal note, I was in the Pentagon during the Sept 11 attacks, and helped out at the triage areas. I spoke with people who either saw or heard the airplane hit (I was on the opposite side of the building at the moment of impact), but I believe Wikipedia should acknowledge that it has been reported in reliable sources that some people have alternate theories of what actually took place. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  How does your personal involvement fit in? Why do other articles minimize the CT component more than this one? The size of the section is less an issue than the fact that it is even mentioned...my early 1980's physical anthropology books don't mention Bigfoot at all...even though forensic and physical anthropology was less advanced than it is now and the Bigfoot craze was much more popular then. If we at least reduce it to just a see also link, then we're being more than charitable I think.--MONGO 02:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't agree with you. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Didn't want you to...I have never agreed with you....jus so ya kno.--MONGO 02:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cla68: I don't dispute the section is neutrally worded or is reliably sourced. The problem is WP:ONEWAY. I'd doubt if you'll find any serious article about 9/11 that also explains 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep section per Cla68. --John (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Saw this mentioned at the fringe noticeboard. I agree with Soxwon. I was in the vicinity and I'm personally offended by those conspiracy theories. I'd love to see that section vanish, but I just don't see any justification for removal at this time. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Coment I previously cited WP:ONEWAY and challenged those who disagreed with the deletion of this section to provide some articles about 9/11 that also include a section explaining 9/11 conspiracy theories.[2] So far, no one has been able to do so. If no one can come up with a valid reason to justify the inclusion of a fringe theory in a mainstream article, it should be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think it's an easy case to be made for it's exclusion, from WP:ONEWAY: Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. Note the last sentence. Conspiracy theories are not discussed in a serious way in reliable sources the way say, Global Warming disputes are. Does that mean it'll happen? Probably not, there's some long term POV pushers that will fight it well past any sensible amount of time. And just as another note, we don't decide on content on the basis of best sellers lists (or opinion polls for that matter). RxS (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "Conspiracy theories are not discussed in a serious way in reliable sources ..." ... yet many sources do discuss the theories, such as the NIST report [3]. Im not too sure Global Warming is the best comparison. --Noleander (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

They didn't discuss it...a discussion is a back and forth...they just outright refuted it. Section 3.3...that is about the WTC 7 collapse...not the attacks, the focus of THIS article.--MONGO 12:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out the "many" mainstream sources that seriously discuss CT in the context of the attacks? RxS (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion, if the notion refers to written statements, does not need to be "back and forth" (although this was actually back and forth with regard to the 7 WTC free-fall question).  Cs32en Talk to me  16:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep section In reply to A Quest For Knowledge I Quote Time magazine:This (conspiracy theories) is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality. Wayne (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I take ONEWAY seriously and appreciate it being brought into the discussion here. However, in searching through the Internet I immediately found that the US State Department itself has a web page devoted to debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories.[4]. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazon, for example, has both CT and non-CT bestsellers in the section "September 11 attacks". It does not have "September 11 attacks" for non-CT, and "Conspiracy theories → September 11 attacks" for CT books.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotty: Yes, but that's an article specifically about the 9/11 CT. What I'm looking for is an article about 9/11 which also includes an explanation of CT. This is one of the arguments, I believe, that Viritas (sp?) made regarding the Time Travel in the Circus film.

Cs32En: How Amazon categorizes it's book has no bearing on this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking the fact that the section in this article DOES NOT explain conspiracy theories. It only states that they exist and even then it only mentions those that have not been conclusively debunked so it cant be claimed that mention is undue.Wayne (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Note: User:John (long, drawn out prior history on the WTC 7 article), Wayne and User:Cs32en all have a history of supporting conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 at the expense of the known evidence and therefore should have their opinions noted as such...they are part of the problem that has kept many of these types of articles from improving since they operate either overtly or more subtlely supporting those that have advocated for fiction over fact...this is disruption, plain and simple. Others that support the current coverage of the CTs of this event deserve fair consideration of their viewpoints since they have no history of POV pushing the CTs regarding 9/11. I appreciate all those that have commented..there is currently NO CONSENSUS to alter the section as I did, and I will not do so in the future. I think we can conclude this discussion.--MONGO 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, I'd suggest leaving this discussion open for a while. I'm beginning to see validity in the argument for ONEWAY, and may change my original view that the section should be kept. As you know, consensus is not an up or down vote but is dependent upon strength of arguments, and I think that ONEWAY needs to be thoroughly explored. While my "gut" told me that the section should stay, policy may well overrule my gut. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with User:John's editing but while I have not agreed with some of User:Cs32en's edits I value his input as he presents proper arguements rather than dismissing everything as "wacky notions" without an explanation of why they are. I may be wrong but "preposterously ridiculous" does not seem like a valid arguement. I also point out that in three years of editing the topic more than 90% my 911 edits are still in the articles yet you continue to see NPOV editing as pushing conspiracy theories if you dont like the edits.Wayne (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Damico, Amy M.; Quay, Sara E (2010). September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. Greenwood. may be a good reference to determine the appropriate weight that conspiracy theories should receive in this article. Information from the book can also be used to determine how to present CT-related content in the article. For example, on page 65, the book says: "Conspiracy theories surrounding September 11 spread quickly via the Internet and were addressed and challenged in mainstream media."  Cs32en Talk to me  00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've done that several times already. No one's been able to produce any articles about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that also include a serious and prominent explanation of 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quest: I saw your request above, when you first made it, but I could not understand it, so I did not reply. Could you explain some more? This article September 11 attacks is a top-level WP:Summary style article. It summarizes all the material about the topic, and it is the parent of a couple dozen sub-articles, (see WP:Content fork) including September 11 conspiracy theories. That seems like a natural organization. The key question we should be asking is whether secondary sources talk about the conspiracy theories or not. You are asking whether WP articles discuss the topic, but - as you know - WP cannot be used as a source. (Or, are you using the word "article" to mean sources outside WP? If so, there are many that discuss the conspiracy theories, as part of a broader discussion). --Noleander (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Just half a sentence, a fleeting mention, while ONEWAY requires "serious and prominent" discussion in the source. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotty: I think you are reading too much into ONEWAY: (1) it is just a guideline; not a policy. (2) the ONEWAY guideline simply requires that the sources be reliable: the sources that focus on the conspiracy theories are reliable sources for the conspiracy theories; (3) your proposed requirement is a catch 22: any source that discusses the conspiracy theories, by virtue of the discussion, becomes non-reliable. E.g. Debunking 9/11 myths: why conspiracy theories can't stand up to the facts ... a full book (with a forward by Senator McCain) ... is that a reliable source? Is it about 9/11? We should not let wiki-lawyering get in the way of our primary goal of helping readers navigate the information in this encyclopedia. If the conspiracy theories are widely debunked, that can be clearly stated in this article's text. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that NISTs rejection of conspiracy theories in their report qualifies. Or wasn't it a "serious and prominent" rejection? Wayne (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @Noleander: You're correct that it's a content guideline, not a policy, but it's not "just" a guideline - it represents best practices on Wikipedia. The remainder of your points are simply wrong. As I said earlier, there are many reliable sources that discuss the fringe 9-11 conspiracy theories, so obviously, since I've said that, there is no "Catch 22," and neither is it correct that ONEWAY deals with adequacy of sourcing. The point is to exclude fringe theories from articles not about fringe theories, unless a reliable source connects them in a serious and meaningful way. The burden is on editors wishing to include the material. So far, none has been offered, so as things stand right now, just to be clear, I am opposed to including the section. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's a short mention; the entire text of the NYT is very short. However, it is an overview that is published by a very authoritative newspaper in a very prominent way.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Having just read ONEWAY I cant see how it supports exclusion. There is nothing in the policy that requires a "discussion." Only that they are connected in a serious way. A rejection of conspiracy theories by a RS is sufficient for inclusion and UNDUE now comes into play as to how much mention. WP:WG may also apply. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Any book that covers astronomy's origins or history will also include an explanation of astrology. Also, any book which explains the difference between astronomy and astrology would naturally cover astrology. For example, astronomer Carl Sagan's book Cosmos (published by Random House Publishing Group) has a chapter about astrology.[5] Check out chapter 3. It contains serious and prominent coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Re my earlier comment: the Warren Report contains an entire appendix discussing "speculation and rumors," including conspiracy theories.[6] See Appendix 12. That is the kind of serious and prominent discussion that is needed. Books on the Kennedy conspiracies don't fit the bill. Similar sourcing is needed for this article. I'm not seeing much of an attempt made to make us aware of such sources by the people advocating inclusion of this material. And no, a NIST report or magazine article debunking conspiracy theories wouldn't satisfy the criteria. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's been no attaempt at all to satisfy ONEWAY. The only examples we get are pop culture and poll stuff. The justification for the sections removal is getting stronger...RxS (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I see ONEWAY in this discussion as little more than gaming the system but I accept that some editors don’t understand it or misinterpret it’s intent. However, the following quotes I post are from the pages of a book I found on how the media reported the attacks. The book is not about conspiracy theories; it merely connects them to 911 in a "serious and prominent" way. We can put ONEWAY to bed and move on.

• Grahame Warby, Martin Cunningham September 11 2001: kindling the debate Media Creations 2004 ISBN 1595262601

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

Are you sure that's a reliable source? The publisher appears to be Media Creations[7]. If you click on "Publish a book" it takes you to Llumina Press[8] which is a self-publishing service (although they claim not to be.[9]). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so; by definition a self-published book is about as reliable a source as a blog. HalfShadow 21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not reliable as a source if it is self published. ONE minor example would hard put ONEWAY "to bed" anyway. Basically, the professionals simply don't waste their time with 9/11 conspiracy theories because they are so preposterous.--MONGO 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Amazon listing gives the publisher as Llumina Press, a self-publishing house. The case for ONEWAY justifying removal of the section is getting stronger the longer this discussion drags on. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake, the idea that WP:ONEWAY should completely eliminate 9/11 conspiracy theories from the article is preposterous. Just as you can't discuss JFK w/o conspiracy theories, it's hard to comprehensively cover a topic like 9/11 w/o mentioning a movement that has been active since the event took place, claims millions of adherents around the globe, and has successfully crossed over into mainstream culture. Comparing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to Flat-Earthers is dishonest in terms of scope, no one from Popular Mechanics or NIST feel the need to refute theories about the Earth's shape. The fact that they do shows how prominent the theories have become. Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if they feel a need to refute 9/11 conspiracy theories, it seems more like they enjoy doing it because they are so easy to refute. My overall impression is the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are dying off and the interest level simply isn't there anymore...doubt the percentage of native English speakers that believe in 9/11 CTs is rising. I can easily discuss JFK without any discussion as to whether there was a lone gunman or not. No, the ONEWAY argument isn't the only one...how about the fact that idiotic CTs surrounding 9/11 aren't worth mentioning since they are idiotic?--MONGO 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At least pretend to be neutral MONGO. After all, NPOV is the entire arguement for keeping or rejecting the section. Even the 911 commission concluded that some of the minor conspiracy theories were true. If the CTs are dying off, it is still not relevant not to mention that deletion of the section is guaranteed to spur new interest in CTs which negates your arguement. BTW "idiotic" is not a criteria for deletion......or Bush jr wouldn't have a page lol.Wayne (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Heres a few more books. Lets drop ONEWAY and move on please. We currently sit on seven for keep and three for delete.

• This book is not about popular culture in the Wikipedia policy sense but is about how the media reported and reacted to the events, much as the previous book I posted did. It blames conspiracy theories on the inadequacies of reporting as the other did.
  Amy M. Damico, Sara E. Quay September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide ABC-CLIO 2010 ISBN 0313355053
• This book discusses events leading up to and government policies following 911. Connects CTs to the political culture prior to 911, specifically blaming politicians for their existence. Mention of CTs is primarily around how CTs originated and are being kept alive by the POV pushing of those who support the original government version 100% including elements of the government version since debunked, ie the claim that the attacks came as a surprise etc.
  Thomas Meyer Reality, truth and evil: facts, questions and perspectives on September 11, 2001 Temple Lodge Publishing 2005 ISBN 190263666X
• Despite the title, this book doesn't deal with conspiracy theories. The book details the events and failures of 911 with only nine scattered pages explaining CTs in a NPOV way and later mentioning that all credible CTs need to be included in any new investigation to exclude them.
  Eric D. Williams The Puzzle of 911: An Investigation Into the Events of September 11, 2001 and Why the Pieces Don't Fit Together Lulu 2004 ISBN 1419600338Wayne (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• If your basic math is as bad as your argument for why ONEWAY (and many other reasons) doesn't count here then you need to get an education. I see 10 for keeping and 8 for deleting...you need to learn how to count. I used google reader to skim through the 2nd and third books mentioned above and these books are conspiracy theory based books about what happened...the more books you put up that are written in such a way, the lousier your argument becomes, so thanks for showing your ignorance.--MONGO 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a vote Mongo. WP:ONEWAY is not applicable in the situation, as anyone who covers the topic in a meaningful way would be at a loss to explain how to exclude the 9/11 Truth movement. Honestly, you act as if this were three people sitting in a basement coming up with the wildest shit they can think of. I agree and hold contempt for them as you do, but you can't cover 9/11 w/o mentioning them. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a vote, which is why ONEWAY needs to be addressed. So far its requirements have not been satisfied. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't need to be addressed, you cannot cover 9/11 w/o at least MENTIONING the truth movement. WP:ONEWAY refers to THEORIES. Even if you ignore all the THEORIES of truthers, you can't ignore the existence of the MOVEMENT ITSELF or the PEOPLE involved. Your not emphasizing theories so much as that a substantial number of people believe the theories and there was a large movement that believed that 9/11 was committed by the US gov't/Israel/Businessmen/aliens/moon bears/sentient moss. Soxwon (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy theorists oftentimes do come up with the "wildest shit" they can think of. And you're dead wrong that we have to mention the 9/11 conspiracy theorists...we don't have to mention them at all...giving them any credit in an article that is supposed to be dedicated to the known evidence is like a physical anthropology book discussing Bigfoot....which they don't do!--MONGO 18:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a horrible analogy. This is NOT a scientific article, it's a historical one. Therefore WP:ONEWAY doesn't apply, we're not talking about science where biology rejects intelligent design, we're talking history where the debate b/w evolution and creationism is mentioned. Soxwon (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Human evolution does not mention creationism, creationists or similar...that article is the "Parent" article for related subarticles...this article is the parent of related subarticles...but in an effort to show compromise, I am willing to keep the CT section if we also mention and cite that some of the CTers like to wear Tin foil hats.--MONGO 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Correct, that is a scientific article on the subject, but take for instance a historic aritcle on the subject: [10]. There creationists get a brief mention as they had a deep impact from a cultural and historic standpoint, which would apply to truthers. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

ONEWAY is not restricted to scientific theories or subjects, so that's a red herring. Soxswon, I came into this convinced that the section belonged there, but I gradually began to see the merit of exclusion primarily on the basis of ONEWAY. I think we need to keep an open mind on these kinds of situations. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that means that the Anthropology analogy and all such arguments are also Red Herrings. I'm merely pointing out that, from a cultural and historic standpoint, Truthers ARE signficant, and therefore, relevant to the subject of 9/11. I completely understand that mentioning them feels like giving loons WP:UNDUE weight, but unfortunately, that's the way it goes. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I can sum up my position as this: If this were a scientific article, then yes, the junk science of the 9/11 movement would be easily dismissed from the article. However, since this article is also responsible for covering the cultural and historic aspects of 9/11, it would be irresponsible and dishonest to simply ignore a movement that has been covered by multiple RS's, has demonstrated cultural significance, and has millions of members as proven by multiple polls. The fact is, at one time, more than 10 percent of American's did not believe the truth, and hundreds of millions around the globe agreed. You can't simply brush them aside and/or ignore their easily verified existence. I would advocate WP:COMMONSENSE. Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If this article were something like Public reaction to the September 11 attacks I'd see your point. But I think we need to be more rigorous in an article on the attacks themselves. That's where my commonsense takes me. By the way, I see that link goes to an essay on the theme of ignoring all rules. I think we need to heed the rules in this case. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not saying we should have a lengthy section, or even a full section. I'm saying that eliminating it entirely is not acceptable. I would expect a "Public reaction" article would simply give a more in-depth look, rather than a brief mention. Again, you can't simply ignore the people's existence when it is so easily verified no matter how crazy or disgusting they are. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's an all or nothing proposition. But the arguments for inclusion are so weak that I'm having trouble finding justification for any mention at this time. The RS sources being cited in justification of inclusion, purported to deal with the fringe theories in a serious and prominent way, are of such poor quality that my eyes just glaze over. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Soxwon: No one's denying that 9/11 conspiracy theories are one of the more popular conspiracy theories around. But Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference work. I don't think that a serious article about 9/11 would also include a section about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I've examined numerous sources about 9/11 and they don't even mention it. I also checked Encyclopedia Britannica[11] and they don't mention it either. AFAIK, the only source that also explains conspiracy theories in the context of 9/11 is Wikipedia. Something is wrong with this picture. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There are 700 words in the EB article, several of the sections of the article by themselves are that long. By your logic, everything but the introduction should be eliminated, as it by itself is 500 words. Your argument, therefore, is invalid unless you are serious about chopping off the vast majority of the article. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Soxwon: OK, fine. Here's another example. The 9/11 Commission Report is over 500 pages long, and it doesn't contain a single mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats a red herring. The 911 commission left mention (and claims) of conspiracy theories to public statements they made later. Exclusion of the existence of conspiracy theories from any serious work is a SOP because they would have to research them if included and few authors are willing to expend the time or expense. The author of the book I quoted that had only 9 out of 500 pages mentioning them specifically said in his book that he could not expand on the CTs or comment on their validity because he didn't want to research the subject. This is one reason why it is inappropriate the way ONEWAY is being used here, even if we ignore that no one seems to understand what the policy actually means or intends and is misinterpreting it to support their own view. Wayne (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's pure speculation, and your premise is simply not true. The Warren Report, as I previously mentioned, included an appendix discussing the fringe theories then circulating on the Kennedy assassination. If any serious, reputable RS source on the 911 attacks contains a discussion of the conspiracy theories, the burden satisfied by ONEWAY is lifted. Evidently no such sources exist. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - A new user just reworded the entire section and I would question its neutrality.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, not a fan of that wording. Also Mongo, perhaps we could reach some sort of compromise [13] Soxwon (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My compromise is that I don't go around and nominate for deletion all the perpheral 9/11 CT promotional articles, written by truthers, but instead concentrate on trying to just have this ONE maintain some semblence of focus based on the known facts.--MONGO 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a generous offer, given that the alternative approach that you have indicated has already been tried in the past.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that wording either. WP:UNDUE weight for the TM in this article, as not all conspiritalists are Truthers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- I must be the new user that reworded the section. I didn't reword the entire section, mainly focusing on adding some important points that were missing, such as the emphasis on Tower 7's destruction by the denialists and the omission of that event from the 9/11 Commission Report. I agree that labeling the entire section concerning dissenting views as 9/11 Truth Movement may be overly inclusive, as not all conspiracists may be truthers, but it is a far more egregious generalization to label the truthers as conspiracists, as many of them make no positive claims as to the events of 9/11 nor the motivations behind it. I understand my wording isn't attracting many fans thus far. I don't mind the wording being revised, but I would like to see the content I tried to include be added to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1a (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a plethora of other articles dedicated to explaining most of the preposterous conjectures by denialists/truthers/and others. What these various people "think" really doesn't matter since we have known facts to rely on for this article.--MONGO 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets have a look at this in the perspective of a similar dispute. In Australia there are only three prominent people who aggresively dispute that colonists killed Aborigines in any significant numbers. These three are seen by the scientific community here pretty much as truthers are seen in the US and are commonly refered to here as denialists. One is historian Keith Windschuttle, one is archaeologist Josephine Flood and one is journalist Rod Moran. Support for the denialist view is so small that there is no equivalent of the 911 Conspiracy Theories article covering the issue but occasionally we get POV pushing denialists trying to edit the historical articles to make Windschuttle the primary authority which is sort of similar to some problems here. However, when you go to almost any Australian historical Indigenous article such as Tasmanian Aborigines or List of massacres of Indigenous Australians the denialist view is included citing those three extensively. I believe it is often given undue weight but it is still included and I would never argue to have the view completely removed. Despite the number dropping, even today 30% of Americans still believe in 911 conspiracy theories and the percentage is much higher in other developed countries where the percentage is actually increasing rather than decreasing. What is so special about September 11 attacks that a very significant minority view is not even allowed to be acknowledged as existing? Wayne (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If pressed, I doubt that the 30% of Americans actually truly do "believe" the "official story' is bogus...same or higher percentages of Americans believe the myths about Bigfoot, UFO's, JFK etc. Thats too bad that in other parts of the world the 9/11 CTs believers are increasing...sounds like the USA is more unpopular than I thought, and/or urban myths take precedent over facts in those locales...thats a shame.--MONGO 07:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Support Removal It has it's own article, it doesn't need to be here. --Tarage (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that its notable enough for its own breakout article suggests that it deserves a small mention. Soxwon (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics discusses conspiracy theories, so if it is considered a RS then their debunking article irrefutably connects the two topics as required by ONEWAY.Wayne (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This book also connects them. As it is a 9th grade Humanities textbook it is definitely a RS.
Mark Baildon, James S. Damico Social Studies as New Literacies in a Global Society Routledge Research in Education Taylor & Francis, 2010 Page 93 - 103 ISBN 0415873673

Small mention is a link. Nothing more. --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How is 10 pages dedicated to discussing 911 conspiracy theories a "small mention"? Does the policy require a minimum word count now? Raising the bar every time you cant counter support for inclusion is not GF. Wayne (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you and your ilk are loud, does not mean you are important. It HAS an article. A link is fine. --Tarage (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A link and separate section would be acceptable to me, but what's there is not excessive. Removing it entirely from the body is inappropriate. (As is the application of WP:ONEWAY by some of the people advocating removals.) In case anyone is wondering where I'm coming from, I quite agree the conspiracy theories are absurd, but they are notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Guess we have to agree to disagree. I didn't think it had much of a shot anyway, but I wanted to put in my vote. --Tarage (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Arthur: One of things I like to do when deciding these types of content issues is to perform the following thought experiment. If BBC News or the History Channel was going to produce a documentary on 9/11, would they include an explanation of 9/11 CT? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They'd probably mention it which is all that is being suggested. Soxwon (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The History Channel would probably concentrate on the conspiracy theories, if it comes to that. Just look at their Crystal skull program. However, we all agree that even the BBC would give it a brief mention, which is all we're doing here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Protected due to edit warring

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. The community expects better of experienced users than to edit war like that. I expect WP:INVOLVED admins to respect the protection and not edit through it, and for all involved to discuss the matter here. All participants can consider themselves warned, if warring resumes after the protection is lifted the next step is the liberal use of blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I added an invisible comment: please restore {{pp-move-indef}}{{pp-semi-indef}} when the full protection terminates. However, because of those indef protections, I don't think the full protection should have an automatic time limit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Good job guys. Nownone of us can play with the ball.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than protecting, why not block the person who has removed a section three times against consensus? --John (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If we don't trim a lot of the fat out of this article, starting with the CT section, then it will never be an FA.--MONGO 03:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not an excuse to edit war, everyone who participates is automatically wrong. @Arthur: I think it would be ok for any admin to restore the previous protections when the full prot. is over, they are more about vandalism. If I'm online when it expires I'll do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a small back and forth...you're overreacting...no one violated 3RR and as I mentioned in my last revert, I was planning on bringing all this to discussion. Plainly put...the CT section has to go if this article will ever be FA potential...about another 50kbs also need to be trimmed.--MONGO 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement, it is merely one bright-line application of the edit warring policy, which was clearly being ignored yesterday. I don't have an opinion on the content dispute, that is not relevant to this point as anyone who edit wars is automatically in the wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You waited 3.5 hours(!) after Arthur Rubin reverted me...and I had made it clear I intended to open dialogue on my last edit...then you protect it for multiple days? Yes, you overreacted.--MONGO 00:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I requested it at WP:RFPP it took some one that long to respond. Considering there was 2.5 while between Authur's reversion and your last removal there no argument that it would not have been reverted again. Honestly too people were using rollback in content dispute as well. Beeblebrox could have removed rights for that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD...and WP:IAR...junk science shouldn't have any focus in an article that should be dedicated to truth. That was one slow motion "edit war"...and a 4 day PP is overkill....might as well protect it permanently because whenever the POV pushing CTers see anyone go after their pet section or links, they all converge like vultures on fresh roadkill...and so long as they are here to keep this article down, it will never blossom into what it should be.--MONGO 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The talk page has seen quieter times, and rather chaotic times. The article did not change or improve much, not during the more chaotic time, but not during the quieter times either. Your conjecture therefore appears not to be based on an honest account of the past evolution of this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gee...I've worked on this article for almost 6 years...do you think I might have some idea what the article has had to go through to get this good? I have the 3rd most edits on this article...been around on it a lot longer than you...but maybe I haven't since your first edit doesn't look like a newbie edit at all...could you be a topic banned editor?--MONGO 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have edited on the German Wikipedia for some time before I have started editing on the English Wikipedia.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither BOLD nor IAR are a free pass to edit warring. Slow motion edit warring is no more justifiable than rapid fire edit warring. Why you were edit warring is not relevant unless you were undoing blatant vandalism. Nevertheless, you are free to request unprotection at RFPP at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why you protected it for 4 days is not relevent since as an admin you can use your own best judgment even if that judgement is poor. If you keep insulting me, I'm just going to give it back to you.--MONGO 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I have insulted you, I have only endeavored to clarify the edit warring policy. I believe my protection was in keeping with the protection policy, but as I've said if you don't agree you are free to file a request at WP:RFPP for unprotection. Alternately you could stop arguing about the protection and concentrate your efforts at the discussion above aimed at resolving the content dispute that led to the edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Length of time editing an article is not an indicator of the reliability of edits. Some of yours have been as problematic as those of the POV pushers on the other side of the fence. I also see no problem with getting FA with the section as it currently reads included. It's definitly not a deal breaker on it's own. If you want people to support your view, a polite discussion using facts will get better results. Wayne (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The only edits I have noticed you have made to 911 articles are to enhance conspiracy theories...so it does not surprise me Wayne that you would find my efforts to keep your junk science out of this and related articles to be "problematic"--MONGO 23:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your attempt at guilt by implication is typical. In three years of editing the topic more than 90% my 911 edits are still in the articles yet you continue to categorise a NPOV with conspiracy theorists if you dont like the edits. Work with editors to find a NPOV solution to problems instead of relying on name calling to support your view. I see little difference between your occasional promotion of "junk debunking" and others trying to add "junk science". Wayne (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wayne...you're edits have been reverted many times...the only reason you didn't get topic banned for POV pushing conspiracy theories is because you backed off just in time....but that could change if you resume your typical effort.--MONGO 15:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, I would advise you to take a look at WP:PA. It appears that you have violated it on several occasions in this talk page alone, with multiple editors. I'm clearly not the first editor to mention this to you. While you're at it, take a look at WP:CIV Bill Heller (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

disagree that claiming planes were intentionally crashes into twin towers is "original research"

Consensus is quite clear on this issue, discussing it further is not constructive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A prior user had put a "citation needed" tag on the claim that the planes were intentionally flown into the twin towers ("The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers ..." the tag came after the word "intentionally"). In the edit, the user asserts that WP:SYNTH dictates that "intentional" requires a citation. I don't see how this makes any sense at all. It is perfectly reasonable to figure that those planes must have been flown into the twin towers intentionally. I think that claiming otherwise is what would require a citation. AlkaloidMan (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC) AlkaloidMan Agree that cit needed tag is inappropriate there. Besides it being obvious, nearly every account says as much. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Then cite it if its so damn easy The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Here.[14][15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Good Grief Charlie Brown. No wonder this article gets so much ANI attention and is on probation. Seems that someone's always edit warring over the tiniest little detail.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) AHHHHH Welcome to the Jungle We take it day by day If you want it you're gonna bleed but thats the price you pay The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Look, there is no need for a citation tag or citation IMO. Unless two of the greatest instances of pilot error in the history of aviation both occurred on the same day at the same sight, there was OBVIOUSLY intent by SOMEONE (whether it be terrorist or gov't) to fly those planes into those towers on purpose. Doesn't take a genius to figure this one out people. Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I've generally been refraining from commenting in order to retain administrative neutrality here, but I think I can comment on this particular issue and maintain that neutrality. Whether mention of the conspiracy theories belong in this article or not, this article is about the facts. It is a verified fact witnessed by thousands of people in person and millions more on television that airplanes collided with the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To suggest that this was not a deliberate act is ridiculous in the extreme. Even if you believe in the the various theories about why or who, that planes were deliberately crashed into the WTC is a fact. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Seriously. There was some supposition between 8:46 and 9:02 AM on September 11 that the first strike might have been an accident, but nobody has seriously suggested it was anything but intentional action since the minute the second plane struck. Even all the "truthers" I've ever heard of, who dispute practically everything else, do not dispute that it was an intentional act ("by whom" being a separate question). If this needs a citation, just cite the 9/11 Commission report. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC) No I completely agree lets cite it so people can stop bitching about the lack of sourcing. Thats what I always do. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC) No, b/c you don't need to cite that Winston Churchill was a man or that there are no more dinosaurs. People challenge who flew the plane or that there was a plane at all, but NO ONE who thinks a plane hit the WTC thought it was an accident, hence this is nothing more than trolling. Soxwon (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) There's no cite needed...for all the reasons listed above. No one is bitching about the need, and the one person who put the cite request there is a mostly inactive editor with truther propaganda on their userpage. We cite this and the flood gates are open for over citation by every POV pusher that wants to make a point anywhere on Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC) You both are absouletly right, shouldnt have to but some one has done it. I put a citation on every sentence of an article I wrote just becuase almost every statement would be challenged by some idiot complaining about something not being true. Its a pain but sometimes it needs doing. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The person who added it is a known POV pusher who has been banned before for it. Ignore, move on. --Tarage (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC) That's a personal attack, Tarage. And RxS, the word 'truther' is POV pushing in itself. I am only pointing out that Synthesis is prefectly described by phrases like: "It is perfectly reasonable to figure that those planes must have been flown into the twin towers intentionally." ...but what kind of source is there that can ACTUALLY state the intent of the pilots? Who has the information about the state of mind of the pilots? User:Pedant (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) I'll call your bluff. If you feel it's a personal attack, and that we are being unfair, do something about it. Start up an ANI. Until then, your proposal is rejected. --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Tarage, Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore him, all he wants is attention. Soxwon (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC) You're taking WP:SYNTH to a new level of literal interpretation and creating your own synthetic variation in the process: you imply that there is some likelihood that it wasn't intentional. Absurd. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) WP:SOUP. Stop it, please. Claims of "original research" on this point are blatantly absurd. Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC) I already provided two sources[16][17] which explicitly state that the planes were intentionally crashed into the buildings a week ago. Verifiability has been satisfied. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC) I suppose that a pedant may be expected to be familiar with WP:TEND, but that does not excuse tendentiousness. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Verifiability requires more than just an explicit statement. Your first ref is an uncredited report, the second just comes from the AP... both contain the exact quote "terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners and intentionally crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City. " but no source as to WHO says this and how someone can be a source for the state of mind of another person on a plane miles away. Neither of those sources is OR CAN POSSIBLY be authoritative on the state of mind of the pilots. It is synthesis on its face to take the actual facts of 9/11 and from those facts extrapolate the state of mind of the pilots. Because the state of mind cannot be known, there cannoty be a source for it. It's the top story in the world over the last decade, so why is the only source available a quote of an unknown person? and Tarage, stop making threats against me, if I am doing something wrong, then do something about it, if not then stay off my user page! User:Pedant (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Also, I never said it was OR, I said it was SYNTHESIS. User:Pedant (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) State of mind or intent of the islamist terrorists hijackers? Looks like they deliberately crashed them...what do you think they were thinking about doing? Going to Disneyland?--MONGO 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) NOW you are adding MORE detail to your POV push, (and you have openly admitted to having a POV and you have exerted active ownership over this page from the beginning.) Just because it LOOKS obvious doesn't mean it's true, or verifiable or validly cited. You see that blue link where it says verifiable? Verifiability is essential to an article of this importance. User:Pedant (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Conspiracy theorists question the accepted version"

This does not sound right. Shouldn't it be: "Conspiracy theorists question the official version" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We talked about this in the following archived discussion. The result of the discussion was to use "accepted" IIRC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What does "IIRC" mean? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist question everything. That's why they're conspiracy theorists. HalfShadow 19:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. Now that I think about it, what if we changed it to "Conspiracy theorists question what they call 'the official version'."? Not sure if we have a source for that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was changed to accepted b/c official is the CT term for what is accepted by the vast majority of academic and reliable sources to be correct. We decided to stop kow-towing to CTs and describe the situation accurately. Soxwon (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the media use the term accepted? The mainstream media certainly dont seem to use the term and they dont even appear to have a term for it at all and tend to use official when mentioning CTs. You need to state by who if you only use accepted but the most commonly used terms by the debunking websites that support the offical theory are generally accepted or widely accepted. Generally is too ambiguous for me although widely seems ok. Mainstream is ok as that gets a lot of use and I see nothing wrong with official as that is what it is. I dont see it as "kow-towing" as it is the most common term and is NPOV. Throwing in the vast majority red herring is not helpfull as there are no statistics in support. From what I have read the vast majority of academic sources have not commented publicly on any theory at all. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Academia provides less coverage of the "truthers" moronic fables than we do here...at least in print.--MONGO 14:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream media doesn't have a term for it because there is no dispute over the facts. It's like saying "According to the official version, the Earth is round". Who would say such a thing besides flat-Earthers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the same thing as there are large groups of people including scholars who do not believe in the official story about 9-11, while there aren't large groups of people and scholars who believe that the earth is flat.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS source that you want to base your edit on? Shrike (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Scholars"...thats a laugh. The only thing they seem adept at is trying to make a buck writing wacko books they peddle at their wacko meetups.--MONGO 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See for example this: "International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11" [18] look at the image there: [19]. Its clear that significant portions of people around the world do not believe in the official story, also see this list of scholars:[20], So "official" or "mainstream" would better present the situation then "accepted". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a crap what people believe...this article is based on what is proven...its not our fault that lots of people believe in UFO's or Bigfoot...even though neither, just like the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories, have any basis in fact! The "scholars"...I know all about them...and so what...none of their opinions make it into engineering journals or the scientific literature and if they are mentioned at all it usually so real scientists can get a laugh out of them.--MONGO 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness: If you haven't already, I think you should take the time to read up on our policies such as verifiability and neutral point of view. We're not supposed to write articles based on what the average person thinks. Instead, we rely on reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide now much weight to give different theories by examining popular opinion. There are plenty of polls out there which show large percentages of the general public believing in a wide variety of ridiculous, debunked or disproven propositions. If we based our article content on such polls we would quickly become a laughing stock. What we are interested in is what reliable sources say about the subject, and very few such sources give any credibility to the conspiracy theories. The few that even mention them generally do so from a "look what silly things people believe" angle. If a major media organisation does a report about 9/11 they are very unlikely to mention the conspiracy theories. If a historian or other academic writes about 9/11 they are also unlikely to mention them. In light of this "accepted" is the most accurate term to use. Choosing "official" (whatever that is supposed to mean) vastly overstates the credibility of the alternatives. Hut 8.5 21:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, we are not talking about a petition signed by the general public so that arguement fails. How can "accepted" be the most accurate term when reliable sources dont use it and apart from a few editors here no one else either. Doesn't that make it WP:OR? The reliable sources are clear, we have generally accepted, widely accepted, mainstream and official as the most widely used. Flat Earth, UFOs and Bigfoot are straw man arguements so they can be discounted. And for the record, I like hearing from MONGO. He doesn't even pretend to be NPOV indicating that at least one editor is being honest. Wayne (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, I like hearing from you too..I love everyone...but that doesn't mean I agree with you! From my knowledge base on the 9/11 issues, the conspiracy theories regarding the events are just as preposterous as UFO's...maybe even more so since UFO's COULD exist but the 9/11 CTs are can be proven to be bogus. There is no reason for me to be/act/pretend neutrality when faced with such utter nonsense as the 9/11 CTs. I reject non-science when I have real science to rely on.--MONGO 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you didn't provided WP:RS either or did I missed something?--Shrike (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Firstly, we are not talking about a petition signed by the general public so that arguement fails. Er, no. Supreme Deliciousness cited [21], which is an opinion poll of the general public. He did also cite [22], which is a list of "scholars" questioning the accepted/mainstream/official version. Policy doesn't give any weight to such lists, and for good reason. I have seen similar dodgy creationist lists, which exhibited several flaws: most of the people on the list had no experience in relevant fields, people had been placed on the list without their knowledge or consent, the statement endorsed by the people on the list could be endorsed by someone who didn't accept creationism, and there was no comparable list of scientists supporting evolution.

Even leaving out such problems the list at [23] is laughable. "Degrees" listed include: "Master Theorethical Physics", "finance", "Law", "DDS Dr of Dental Surgery", "Student", "B.A. Film/Television Critical Studies", "Just Highschool", "4 GCSE", "Doctor of Chiropractic", "Licensed Clinical Social Worker", "love for humanity in my brain and my heart" etc. I can't see any reason why these people are any more qualified to comment on 9/11 than laypeople. Even the people with doctorates are often in such fields as religious studies, evolutionary biology, literature etc that have little or nothing to with 9/11.

"Widely accepted" and "generally accepted" are really just minor variations on "accepted", which doesn't mean "universally accepted". What external sources say isn't that important when it comes down to the exact wording used, because we are bound by editorial policies such as WP:WEIGHT whereas most media organisations aren't. I suppose "mainstream" would be an acceptable alternative, but "official" is just a device used by conspiracy theorists to make their arguments look more impressive (and yes, I have a source for that [24]). Hut 8.5 14:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A home handyman magazine is hardly an authority and it uses the term generally accepted anyway.Wayne (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument against mentioning the petition or the term "official". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

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

This is not a good version, for several reasons. First of all, many of the sources are conspiracy theory sites. Better sources can be found. Then the second sentence talks about some international poll - although it's good to mention this pool, there are also many US polls, see September 11 attacks opinion polls, is it not important what's the opinion of people within the U.S.? Maybe it would be best to link to the whole article. Then the source for the claim that the "controlled demolition conspiracy" is the most prominent one is a conspiracy theory site itself. And it is worth noting that a 2006 Scripps poll shows that less than half of the people who believe the U.S. government was involved in the attacks or did not stop them on purpose believe the towers were detonated. --V111P (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed text for the section with sources? I see the poll was removed (with cause) any other suggestions? Moxy (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine the way it is. Is there a specific problem? I think there's a sizable minority that would like to see if removed all together. RxS (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also like it to be gone - however it is a well documented aspect (be it right or wrong) that has permeated in the culture surrounding the attacks. Most writers today have no choice but to mention this aspect of things as with Damico, Amy M (2010). September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. Greenwood. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-313-35505-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) PS we should use this as a ref for this section ....Moxy (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

{Ec}I think we should delete this section entirely. Aside from the previously discussed issue with WP:ONEWAY, it essentially amounts to a "In popular culture" section with the exception that the only thing about popular culture it covers are conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Its just hard to dismiss because of the coverage it has had - that just wont go away - just as with John F. Kennedy assassination#Assassination conspiracy theories. And if some one is reading up on this topic the "conspiracy" may be of interest to them - lets guide them to the main article with a small intro and let them make there own conclusions. Our readers are not dumb they will see the "conspiracy article" thus the section here holds no merits (as indicated in the section here its self). Moxy (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that most of the non-WP:RS sources in the current version of that section rather provide examples for the content of that section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article should not even have sources. The lead itself only summarizes the content of the body text (which itself should be sourced). As Moxy stated, the lead section was rather stable at the sub-article, so the default assumption would be that it is a valid summary, unless there are specific objections.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a very rough first stab:

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

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