Talk:September 11 attacks

Daily Beast and Clarke's new allegations

[2] If Richard Clark is really saying these things, it will probably be reported in more mainstream sources soon. I'm not sure where this would go in the articles we have on this subject. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought we established that his comments didn't really have enough weight for inclusion. Especially with such a trimmed down article. Should go in the conspiracy theory page. --Tarage (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarke admits he can't prove it...and it appears to be the rumblings of a disgruntled former employee...MONGO 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the articles on the hijackers and on the advance-knowledge debate are probably the best places. Reliable sources do not describe Clarke's statements as conspiracy theories, nor do they describe him as a disgruntled former employee.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now and henceforth is a more accurate assessment. We can surely anticipate that the conspiracy theorists will ensure the ramblings by a former employee that even he states he can't prove will provide innuendo and illusion to some article somewhere.MONGO 11:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now I don't think this belongs anywhere. Clarke seems to be admitting he has no evidence to support these allegations and that therefore they are pure speculation on his part. Clarke made these claims in an interview conducted in October 2009 and hasn't made them anywhere else before or since (assuming he hasn't been misrepresented in this interview). The documentary referred to is produced by two people who previously produced another 9/11 documentary which at least flirts with conspiracy theories. The claims being made plainly constitute a conspiracy theory in that they propose a massive high-level cover-up. Claiming that specific named individuals took part in this cover-up with no evidence whatsoever would also raise BLP issues. If this becomes more widely reported after the documentary is released then it may be appropriate to include it in the articles on conspiracy theories or advance knowledge (there is some overlap between the two) but it certainly doesn't belong in the articles on the hijackers. Hut 8.5 12:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New book goes into possible Iranian and Saudi connections

This Sunday Telegraph article [3] covers a new book called, The Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. According to the article, the book examines the role that the Iranian and Saudi government may have played in the attack and allegations that, for political reasons, the Saudi role may have been downplayed by the Bush administration. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article, thanks for posting the link. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC review improvments

If someone could deal with the mdash and nbsp problems identified here and [4] that would be helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do...in about 8 hours.MONGO 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On one hand, it seems like bin Laden should be written with a non-breaking space: bin Laden. On the other hand, this will make the article harder to edit. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking is mentioned, so I'll try to pare those down some more. Maybe we can avoid adding any links that aren't absolutely essential.

One reviewer mentions "image problems (stacking/sandwiching, caption issues, etc)." I'm not able easily to deal with those; maybe someone good with images could take a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom can you point me to the reviewer's comments or link a diff? (I'm sure it's hiding in plain sight of my searches) - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1; Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made one image move but overall we do have a stack-fest. Comments on the images...favorites? favorite-hated? what can go? what must stay? just change it and we'll see? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The collage at the top is very good. If there are any, we might include throughout the article more information-rich images like the "Map showing the attacks on the World Trade Center" that is in the section Planning of the attacks. The sections Aftermath, Long-term effects, and Memorials could maybe use some more images. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the second paragraph of the Casualties section because the old version had several problems: it isn't correct to say that all the casualties in the towers were killed in the impact or were trapped (and this is a misquotation of the 9/11 commission report anyway), the figures weren't sourced and don't appear in the 9/11 commission report, and the fact that one stairwell in the South Tower remained open can't possibly account for the much reduced casualty figures because only 18 survivors used it. Hut 8.5 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For the general prose issues noted in the FAC comments, it would be helpful for a good writer who hasn't read the article before, to read it and make or suggest specific changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The FAC reviewer closed the nomination after 2(!) days....its hard to get decent advice when the target page for such advice is closed and archived...I have my own suggestions and can surely get all the refs and MOS issues resolved in a week but you are correct Tom in that we truly need a totally neutral poet to make the writing better.--MONGO 02:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are serious problems with writing quality and emphasis that should really prevent this in its current state from being even considered as a "good" article. Shame the anniversary is coming up and it is in such a poor state. --John (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• For the general prose issues noted in the FAC comments, it would be helpful for a good writer who hasn't read the article before, to read it and make or suggest specific changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd love to help but the problems of this article go beyond copyediting. It would need a complete rewrite. Have you considered asking around? --John (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to, write something up in your userspace and people can take a look at it. There will need to be consensus for any big changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am really tempted by this suggestion, but I fear that the "consensus" of the current cohort working on this article is what has left it in its present unsatisfactory state. I think that for it to be improved would really need a wider, more diverse group of editors working on it, something that no one person can really achieve. Maybe the problem is that even ten years after the event, this subject is just too difficult to write a decent article on? I will continue to think about it but it is really a management problem more than it is a copyediting one. Would that it were otherwise. --John (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can join that cohort by working on the article. Alternatively, there are lots of linked articles you can work on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I might take the task on, but certainly not until the 11th has passed because it would get lost in the frenzy of edits the anniversary will inevitably attract. John, could you elaborate a little? I haven't read the article (and don't intend to yet, because if I do copy-edit or re-write it, I want to come to it completely fresh), but it'd be nice to hear where folks think the major problems will be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• A grown-up organization, the BBC, thinks torture, kidnapping and conspiracy theories are notable enough to report on in relation to the September 11 attacks. This article, apparently because of a group of editors generating local consensus by force of numbers, does not. This is both a symptom and a cause of the article's poor quality; honestly, at the moment it isn't even really a GA. Fixing these issues would be a start, if anybody was serious about trying to get it into better shape. At the moment, I am inclined to agree with this harsh but honest critique from someone who has written more FAs than all of us put together and should therefore know what they are talking about. --John (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• [5] does not show that the BBC consider conspiracy theories to be a significant part of 9/11 because the article is entirely focused on conspiracy theories. We also have an article focused entirely on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so in that respect we are the same as the BBC. The issue here is whether the conspiracy theories are significant enough to warrant a mention in a general discussion of 9/11. When mainstream news outlets report on the anniversary of 9/11 it is extremely unlikely that they will mention conspiracy theories unless the report is specifically about conspiracy theories. We should do the same. Hut 8.5 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I've seen that argument, and I understand it represents the current local consensus; I think as I said that this is one of the things holding the article back at present. --John (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• John, I think the article still is TOO broad...the topic is September 11 attacks...I have always believed that aside from the events of the day and the major issues that arose from those events, that this article should stick to those fine points to maintain FOCUS. This article may still be a long way from being an FA, but it is a far cry better than it was 90 days ago and its not because "partisans" made it worse.--MONGO 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• At nearly 8,000 word in length, I would have thought there'd be quite a bit that could be split off into daughter articles, leaving a shorter article here that summarises the events and refers readers elsewhere for more information on a particular topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with HJM here; the article is too long but not broad enough. This was a good start at trying to redress the problem, MONGO, I appreciate that. Once the article is made more neutral in its content, the next job would be to slim down some of the extraneous stuff and try to rewrite it for flow and tone. An article on 9/11 which does not mention the controversies is never going to be a good article let alone a featured one, however complete the local consensus remains among folks still prepared to edit here in spite of the hostile atmosphere. As a minimum it should mention the conspiracy theories; that BBC source could easily provide a model. It should also cover the torture and kidnappings (or, if you must, "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition") that took place in the following years using 9/11 as a pretext. Far more people died in the two major wars the US launched in response to the attacks than on the day. The article in its current state does not adequately tell this story, in my opinion. --John (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks...I don't have a problem with both sides of the coin so long as we stick to the FOCUS and SCOPE issues. Long discussions starting last March and leading through two Rfc's on the subject indicated that there was strong consensus to remove the CT's. I can't also see why dwelving into the alleged kidnappings and torture has any place in this article, either in passing or in depth. You make it sound like the Bushies had goons sitting back clapping that 9/11 happened so they could get a chance to "torture" people...ridiculous. While somewhere those "stories" do need to be told to satisfy whatever purpose they may, I can't see how that place is here. As far as deaths..in the War on Terror it has been more than the events of 9/11...as was the war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, maybe we should have tried to "reason" with the unreasonable. Furthermore, if I had a dollar for every victim of left wing backed oppression, imprisonment, torture and death in places like China, the former Soviet Union, Cuba...etc., I would be filthy rich. If we start going into the alleged controversies, then this article will once again become garbage...a state it was in forever thanks in no small part due to editors who are more interested in pseudoscience and innuendo than providing a fact based accord that maintains FOCUS and SCOPE.--MONGO 02:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I know we differ on this issue, but this isn't about you and me, it's about changing the article to conform with FA expectations. If that is truly your wish, it is my strong feeling (and I was asked to give my opinion) that if it's good enough for the BBC it should be good enough for us. Not including the various controversies around this historical event here on its article is holding the article back. Here is one of many examples of missed opportunities to balance this article. The lack of intervention by the world's most powerful Air Force while its largest city was being trashed by suicide bombers is highly notable and has been written on by many reliable sources. Why is there no mention of this? Why were these good-faith efforts to add well-referenced text brushed aside? --John (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The lack of intervention by the world's most powerful Air Force while its largest city was being trashed by suicide bombers is highly notable and has been written on by many reliable sources"...are you kidding me...what was the worlds largest airforce supposed to do? I'm not sure you have any understanding of the timeline of events, (nor do apparently the alleged writers of these "stories") the fact that initiating an airforce response without knowing exactly how many planes were hjacked, the ramifications of shooting down passenger jets, even if they were heading to the Capital, etc. You want us to venture into conspiracy thories, right? No thanks! I too am wondering if this article can become an FA...if we're going to have to go out on a limb over every piece of wacky misinformation to appease the CTers, it probably won't. It isn't that the alleged "controversies" aren't covered enough to keep this from becoming an FA..it is because it still needs massive MOS improvements and a general cleanup of the flow and structure to improve readability...and possibly sending some sections to daughter articles to improve FOCUS.--MONGO 03:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ok buddy, I think we are through here. I would be amazed if we agreed. There is more than MOS and readability to fix to make this an FA, but you must continue to do as you think best. The clues are there for you if you (or anybody else) ever seriously wanted to address its issues. Reading that talk from 2009 sickened me; that's been the atmosphere that you and your friends have created here and that's what's brought the article to its current state. Really good articles on controversial subjects are written by people listening to and understanding those they disagree with. Until this happens, this article will be as stuck as it is now. See you in another two years, maybe. --John (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• You've offered nothing for us except to say we aren't discussing the controversies... Hello! 2 Rfc's indicated CT's should be avoided here...just as they are by all those that provide a reasonable rendition of the events...do you get it yet? Frankly, I have seen zilch editing of a truly constructive nature from you on this article...you know it needs MOS improvements, yet you offer only the whinny complaint that we don't cover the alleged controversies! Thanks bunches, buddy! Hugs and kisses!--MONGO 03:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not following this article (and have not read it in its entirety) but popped in to see what the discussion looked like. If you are dismissing concerns of comprehensiveness because you instead think the focus needs to be the MOS, then the article will have no hope of passing FAC. Two-year-old RfCs are not going to be enough to hold back those types of issues at an FAC. An FAC will fail if there are serious questions of comprehensiveness, sourcing quality, or POV. Those are the three things that must be addressed first. Prose is the next priority, and I've yet to see an FAC be closed as not promoted solely because of MOS issues. Karanacs (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I see that there was a discussion earlier this year on inclusion of the conspiracy theories. I can tell you that there is no way this article will pass the comprehensiveness part of the FA criteria without some discussion of the conspiracy theories. Doesn't have to be a big one, but if they aren't addressed in this article at all, there will be objections. Karanacs (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

<outdent>Rather than individual opinion (which in my case is for very minimal inclusion of conspiracy theories), I offer two references, both from the Guardian (which has never had much patience for post-9/11 U.S. policy) which both dismiss and succinctly sum up the state of CT thought these days and its reputation in mainstream/reliable sources: [6] and [7]. 9/11 conspiracy theories have always been a sideshow and have become even more marginalized in the past few years. The appropriate weight for this particular sub-topic, based on mainstream sources, both in this discussion and in the article, is minimal. I suspect more such articles will appear in other sources in the next week. Based on Wikipedia's editing model, the best time to extensively improve the article is after the anniversary, once sources appear that discuss the "ten years after" perspective. That may be disappointing, but we're writing a tertiary source. Extensive wrangling about this single aspect here distracts from the fact that the non-conspiratorial part of the article is strikingly hard to write about well, and that improvement of the article needs to be a long-term project. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A similar, but much more detailed discussion in Slate: [8], part of an ongoing series, which postulates that 9/11 CTs peaked a couple of years ago, mirroring experience here on WP. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice sources. Here is evidence that the US government considered these theories notable as recently as 2009. The existence of conspiracy theories was one of four points I gave as examples of the article's "POV-by-omission". It would be interesting to see what folks thought of the other three. --John (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the two Guardian articles and the Slate article. All three articles are badly out-of-date in their content; seemingly out of touch with what is going on today. They would be usable for a history on early (and largely abandoned) 9/11 conspiracy theories, but nothing more than that. For a better representation of the issues in discussion today, I would suggest an article by the Santa Barbara Independent: [9]. Wildbear (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to claim that [10] gives some up-to-date conspiracy theories that supersede the older ones then you're wrong. Most of the claims that are (largely uncritically) regurgitated in it can be found either in Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin (2007) or Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? by Steven Jones (2006). Both these figures are cited in the Guardian article. The Santa Barbara itself dates from 2009 and the only claims in it that date from after 2007 are the section on iron microspheres (Jones' paper on the subject was published in January 2008) and the claims about super thermite (which date from 2009). The conspiracy theorists haven't come up with a new idea in years. Hut 8.5 11:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some might be inclined to debate whether or not there have been any new ideas, but it doesn't really matter. The allegations of evidence for thermitic material have not been scientifically refuted, and this is where much of the "CT" focus remains today. An up-to-date article on 9/11 criticism should reflect this (and downplay things like faked phone calls or a missile at the Pentagon), if it is to present a truly neutral point of view on the topic. In absence of such balanced coverage in the mainstream media, the topic should probably be left out of the Wikipedia article altogether. Wildbear (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegations of evidence for thermitic material have not been scientifically refuted - well they certainly haven't been scientifically demonstrated. When this paper was published almost nobody in the real world (outside the community of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and associated critics) noticed. A few scientists did comment on the paper for Norwegian state radio [11] but their reaction wasn't favourable. In light of this we can't possibly include it here, even if we decided to cover the conspiracy theories in this article. Hut 8.5 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My point in posting the links is that in the mainstream press there's nothing new, and for the purposes of the primary article on 9/11 the Truther agenda is waning or disregarded. That is what is relevant to this article and FAC review. This article is not about conspiracy theories, it's only a question of whether they should be mentioned at all, and if so, how much. If there's any new thinking among CTs, it's not made an impression outside of a narrow circle of devotees, and apart from the "thermite" business of a few years ago, nobody's had any new ideas: Based on the Guardian's' coverage (which is more serious and extensive than most), nobody in the mainstream press finds CTs more than a curiosity. Salon (again, not a source that is particularly complimentary of U.S.policy) discards CTs as a distraction [12] Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Karen...2 rfc's regarding the conspiracy theories indicated overwhelmingly that this issue should be omitted, just as it is by the engineering community. NIST only discussed it n passing to appease the CTers...and when I say in passing, it was a couple paragraphs out of hundreds of pages of text. I definitely agree that the prose is a high priority and needs work yet...when I said MOS issues, I meant that this was still needing major cleanup. Your input is welcome further.MONGO 11:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, thanks for looking in. The scope and content of articles, and the weighting of topics, is determined by the reliable sources on the subject. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but if it's "include the conspiracism or no FAC for you" then I'll do without the FAC, thanks. You're entirely welcome to contribute, but be careful - I hear the prose here is so heinouisly offensive it'll make your eyes bleed. Read one section, then give yourself a few hours to recover. Of course, the FAC review also mentioned "quite a few uncited paragraphs," so maybe the writing isn't really so bad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just about FAC of course; NPOV isn't optional on this project. --John (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted as well that this article used to have a couple of paragraphs regarding cebrations all over the Moslem world, where after the carnage was known, millions of celebrators marched through various regions happy ther event had happened...all this was well documented by excellent sourcing...yet because of howls from some editors, that has been omitted...in an effort to be fair and balanced, I don't see those folks in any way interested in seeing these paragraphs restored, but they are still ranting about the lack of things even less associated with the immediate event of 9/11.MONGO 17:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I realized my comments may come across as "the FAC delegate says you must have this or else bwahahaha". That's not what I meant. More that I see the types of things that reviewers oppose over, and this is a big red flag for me. If y'all don't mind, I'm going to go through and reformat the references to pull out the book sources. I think that will help future reviewers to see the caliber of sourcing you are using and to omit some questions later of "why didn't you include this source". I'll put up a big underconstruction tag right now and get to it - and you can feel very free to revert me if you don't like the format. Karanacs (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources have to be our guide to this, not courting votes from FAC reviewers. I understand you're making an observation and not a threat. If the result is the conspiracy theories have to be presented to get to FA, I'm not interested. Others may be. Thanks for the work on the references; it's a good improvement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read the article closely last night, but I scanned the source list. I'm a little concerned that this is sourced so much to newspapers and to primary sources (reports of the various commissions). The Summers and Swan book seems to be used heavily (good!), but a lot of other books are only cited once or twice. This was an issue with the article on the Columbine Massacre too. It became a featured article not long after the event, but it was delisted years later because there were now a lot of books available about the topic and it was better to use those sources rather than newspaper reports. Given the large number of books that seem to have been written on this topic, I think you may run into trouble in any review process if the article is still weighted so heavily towards newspapers and primary sources. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Very valid points and appreciated. Using Google books to search for sourcing has been beneficial to me in some recent work. But I will admit that as I checked all almost 290 sources, many from news websites, I was surprised how many were still live and not even from archives. I know the article is still using two formats of citations...can't remember what the cite bot was showing...though the referencing here is pretty exhaustive, I'm prepared to eliminate some, alter others, expand and standardize all the refs if needed.--MONGO 22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't just the availability of links (I suspect a lot of those articles will be up for a long time, and I'm glad for that), but the types of info that you get from them. A book, in theory, has a lot more analysis, perhaps more detail, perhaps a different weighting of facts. The ref formatting does need a lot more work (difficult with such a large number of sources!) but in general I do that last, once I make sure I've got the right mix of sources used in the article. Right now I think the mix is weighted too heavily on the newspaper side. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think that including more books may resolve some of the questions about comprehensiveness. Many of those seem to be about the legacy - the conspiracy theories, what 9/11 was used as an excuse for, etc. The increased analysis from books can help to pinpoint if there's any viable content that's been missed in the article. Newspapers don't really cut it for that type of analysis. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix reference: Would someone skilled pls review & do it?

I looked up a reference (currently numbered 246), NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse. The link has been moved to: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm I would have edited the main article, but I'm not so confident of my editing skills that I felt up to editing such a major article. Would someone please fix this? (This particular note will be of only temporary value and pls feel free to delete it after it's fixed. Minor edit later.) Oaklandguy (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Oaklandguy (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting it. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Target of flight 93

In response to this edit the target of flight 93 isn't anything like that clear cut. United_Airlines_Flight_93#Aftermath goes into some detail discussing the possibilities of what the intended target was and the 9/11 commission report is equivocal ("Jarrah’s objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House" - page 14). In light of this I don't think we should state that the target was definitely the Capitol. Hut 8.5 22:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

KSM stated that Atta and Hanjour discussed the difficulties of making a strike on the White House...but I'm going to look that over and see if we can adjust it to show what you mention. I would prefer a short mention of this ambiguity so as to not drown out other details since no primary target was reached by Flight 93.MONGO 11:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting

In the reference citations, does anyone object to delinking Fox News, CNN, AP, CBS News, etc.? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think that's necessary. Several recently promoted FAs have this sort of link in the references and the MoS doesn't seem to say anything on the subject. Hut 8.5 14:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay; easier to leave them alone, and they may be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the general consensus at FAC is that each field of the references (like publishers in this case) should be linked first time, every time, or not at all, and if you're using sources that aren't as widely known as Fox/CNN/AP/CBS and would need to be linked, I guess you should link everything at least once. But overlinking isn't generally an issue with references—it's not a common complaint at FAC in my experience, and I personally hold the view that, since an individual footnote is accessible by one click without viewing the whole reference section, it should provide all the information a reader need, including information about the source (for which a link to the Wikipedia article comes in handy). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See also?

Might be better to remove the See also section and work the links into the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In FA's, that is usually standard since FA's are generally comprehensive. I am working top to bottom on this article trying to standardize it and delinking to eliminate redundancies...even after I finish that by Sunday 9/4/11...it will still need a better writer than I to work the prose. I can deal with MOS issues, especially this weekend, but I'm not a great writer overall.--MONGO 00:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote Iranian Embassy siege, which recently became an FA, and I left a modest "see also" section in it and nobody at FAC complained. Unless there's coverage dealing specifically with the cultural impact, I don't know where you could put links to things like the films, but they're undoubtedly worth linking to from this article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of victims identified

In this article, the number is 1630, but one more has been identified since then. The World Trade Center article says 1629. I know because I added it. I checked various sources and there is no reason to doubt any of them, but someone is wrong. Sources that say 1629 are [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and this source I used. Sources that say 1630 but are now outdated because of the additional victim are [18] and this source used in this article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why no 9\11 conspiracy section?

There is not a single mention of this.Why cant you add this in see also?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 01:08, September 2, 2011

Consensus is against the idea. Hut 8.5 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

Current having the The Wikipedia citation bot scan the article...the article has inconsistant citation styles that are all in need of standardization.--MONGO 17:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot edits are as seen at this edit, showing bot additions...also, I placed the bot report in my userspace...in case someone knows how to look at this report and see if all is okay....you can check the report here.--MONGO 18:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Shortly I'll go through all the citations and replace "author" with "last" and "first" name fields. Someone speak up if that's a bad idea. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I will have gone over all the "long form Google book links" and convert them to short form links using Google book tool. Moxy (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So converting long links like http://books.google.ca/books?id=xMCGStzPzooC&lpg=PP1&dq=September%2011%20attacks&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true

To links short links like http://books.google.com/books?id=xMCGStzPzooC&pg=PP1

Is there something like that for Google News, to shorten [19]?

Not yet that I am aware of - I have asked for one to be made like New York Times Wikipedia reference generator (but still waiting on that).Moxy (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've kept "author" in the citation when an institution was listed - National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, National Construction Safety Team - and one case where the article lists no author. That's all for now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

References 117-119

The references given in footnotes 117, 118, and 119 are not useful as sources for the content of the article. They lack page numbers and rather look like a list for "Further reading".  Cs32en Talk to me  00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Some have page numbers while others don't...and some won't since they are simply not indexed. I was looking at that as well...let me have a day to examine what to do about them as some might be useful.--MONGO 02:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

I've attempted some copyedits and revising the part of the lead section that talks about rebuilding. It still seems too long (to me) and goes into too much detail.

I think the "Nearly 3,000 victims..." paragraph can be mostly eliminated, as it goes into very specific details like "8 private emergency medical technicians" and "70 countries". Most essential numbers can go into the paragraph above that, like 184 killed at the Pentagon. This would bring the lead section down to 3 paragraphs, and perhaps give a little space to summarize other parts of the article in the lead.

What's missing in the lead? The lead says "Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda." Who is Al Qaeda? The lead says nothing about who they are/were, nor give a little context or background (in a nutshell).

Another nitpick ... the first paragraph says "The hijackers intentionally crashed two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing all on board and thousands of those working in the buildings." This makes it seem that the plane crashes themselves resulted in thousands of deaths. (no idea how many were killed instantly? but maybe hundreds, not thousands?) Not sure how to fix.

Cheers --Aude (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you Aude....if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll address these issues this evening.MONGO 11:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could trim the content on the memorials as well, it's hardly one of the most important aspects of the topic. Hut 8.5 14:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Are the hijackers included in the death toll?

There is a box that says no. Are we certain of this? Someone edited the World Trade Center article to say the hijackers had not been included, and I reverted the edit, plus another edit that fixed a misspelling in the previous edit, until we know for sure.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what box you mean. I see "Approximately 3,000 (including 19 hijackers)", and elsewhere more specific figures. Casualties of the September 11 attacks would be the main article, and it has a section By the numbers that breaks it down a bit more. This has come up in the past, but the figures seem to be correct now. "Approximately 3,000" works whether it includes the hijackers or not, so in that context mentioning the hijackers is probably a question of what is most stable and what reads best. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Under the heading "casualties", the box I copied in the lower right corner.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Deaths (excluding hijackers)
New York City	World Trade Center	2,606
	American 11	87
	United 175	60
Arlington	Pentagon	125
	American 77	59
Shanksville	United 93	40
Total		2,977

Regarding what is "most stable", the number of victims doesn't change that often. Is my solution to showing that victims are not hijackers satisfactory?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that, but there may be subtle points about the casualty figures. If so, someone will speak up. Thanks for running it down. By "stable" I mean generally accepted over time by readers/casual contributors. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I just tried myself re-running the numbers, with current sources, not counting the hijackers: [20] [21]. This matches the table.

• 2753 at the WTC
  • 1470 - north tower
  • 87 - flight 11
  • 695 - south tower
  • 441 - first responders
  • 60 - flight 175
• 184 at the Pentagon
  • 125 in the building
  • 59 - flight 77
• 40 - flight 93
• 2977 - total victims
• + 19 hijackers
• 2996 total deaths

I'm not sure if there are any discrepancies anywhere, but if so, would be good to find and correct them. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualties of the September 11 attacks has 90 for Flight 11, unless that has been fixed.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... the casualties articles uses http://inmemoriamonline.net as a source, but I don't think it should be considered reliable, to Wikipedia standards. Looking for better sources. --Aude (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source in the section of the Flight 11 article that says there were 81 passengers and 11 crew is a dead link. How are we going to fix this?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Aude for fixing the Casualties article. Regarding the dead link, I happened to notice a book at the library I just returned from which had a title similar to Report from Commission on 9-11 Attacks. It has a chapter called "We have some planes". I never saw what Aude found, but I think we're okay just on the victim numbers.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11 memorial link

I've added a link to the National September 11th Memorial and Museum's list of victims, which is current and maintained. Not sure if there is anything better than this to link to? Cheers. --Aude (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just searched and found no better sourcing overall. Thank you.--MONGO 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove all the refs from the lede

If someone doesn't do this by Tuesday evening, I will unless there are objections.--MONGO 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the material on memorials and rebuilding isn't duplicated in the article content, this ought to be moved. Hut 8.5 14:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh...well, then yes that wl need adjusting...I was going to reuse the refs after removing them from the lede section.MONGO 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

mdy dates?

There's a hidden category, Use mdy dates|date=August 2010. Should this be kept? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the category is just there to let bots know that the article uses American date formatting (and possibly to help them enforce this). I don't see any reason to remove it. Hut 8.5 12:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There was also a hidden template showing (can't remember the exact wording) that 2 different cite formats were being used...which was bot generated and designed to improve consistancy in formating...but it was gone last I looked, so either the problem was solved or the bot was disabled for this article.MONGO 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I took that out, hopefully following the documentation for Citation Bot; haven't quite figured it out yet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

General thought on 9/11 pages

Someone added an In popular culture section to one of the articles. I hate these like poison, but it might be better to leave them alone in the near term, unless they're completely outrageous. The people adding items mostly mean well. I'm inclined to wait till some time after the anniversary to explain and clean them out. Of course, reasonable people may differ on how best to handle it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref format

I like the idea of formatting the refs and good job thus far - However if refs are to be converted we should be using Template:Sfn "type" style - so that they actually link up and make it easier for our readers - Current format being implemented will make it harder for our readers (more complicated to locate the refs). The example always used is The Beatles were refs and sources linkup, thus making there navigation simpler for our readers to access the information. Just thinking out-loud dont think is all that important, but if we are doing it, lets do it properly Moxy (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The way The Beatles links references and sources does make it easier. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Airport security

This section is outdated and the "main article" referred to is as well. Plenty of reliable sources including this recent Guardian article could be used to update the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

On the top of the article page there is a tab which says "edit"...click that...write in the info...add reliable references....below the editing window there is a line to type in a summary of your edit...if you want to see what your edit will look like hit "preview"...or simply hit the "save" button. Wikipedia, the website anyone can edit...MONGO 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Current outstanding NPOV issues, with reliable sources

To assist focused discussion towards improving the article, I thought I would sum up the outstanding issues as I see them.

1. Existence of conspiracy theories about the attacks. BBC 1, Guardian 1, Guardian 2, Slate, US Government, Santa Barbara Independent, Norwegian State Radio, Salon
2. Torture and kidnapping carried out by US government using 9/11 as a pretext. BBC 2, BBC 3 Guardian Cheney
3. Entry of the US into two unwinnable wars as a response to the attacks, leading to far more deaths than the original attacks Guardian 3 CNN 1 Vice: Dick Cheney and the hijacking of the American presidency
4. Airport security; billions wasted Guardian 4
5. Non-intervention of the USAF: Andrew Brookes, Destination Disaster (2002), ISBN 0711028621, p84. "Marwan al-Shehhi on the flightdeck [of United 175] had learned enough in his training to turn off the transponder that enabled ground controllers to pinpoint the airliner's altitude and position. From now on, watchers on the ground would have to rely on raw radar returns. These were used to scramble two F-15 interceptors from Otis Air Force Base at 08.39hrs, but no one on the ground understood what was happening or what should be done. Even if they had put in full afterburners, the F-15 pilots could have done little because the first airliner was just six minutes' flying time from Manhattan." and David Gero, Aviation Disasters, 4th Edition (2006), ISBN 0750931469, p328. "Although US military forces had been alerted about the hijackings, and two Air Force F-16 jet fighters were airborne in the area, no official authorisation to shoot down Flight 93 was given until the aircraft had crashed. (The question as to whether the 757 would have reached its target had those aboard not taken action on their own remained disturbingly unanswered in the report issued by a federal commission established to investigate the terrorist attack.)", CNN 2, (Many more at this archive)

There are probably others, but those five are the main ones I am aware of. --John (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Consensus is against the majority of these edits. --Tarage (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the conspiracy theories for a moment, the article is already quite long at 48kb of readable prose (WP:SIZE recommends that articles over 50kb may need to be divided) and several people have suggested here and elsewhere that content be moved into sub-articles. In light of this adding more details isn't necessarily a good idea, and the fact that something is relevant or sourced doesn't mean it should be added. :[22] is an opinion piece and can't be used as a source, and in any case linking 9/11 to the Iraq War is contentious to say the least (no link has ever been established between Iraq and 9/11, and Rationale for the Iraq War doesn't even mention the attacks). I suppose we could add a bit detailing what happened to Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion. Airport security is barely mentioned at three sentences in "Government policies toward terrorism" and I think more details on the subject ought to go into Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks rather than here. I do think that we could use some more content on allegations of torture of terrorist suspects. Hut 8.5 13:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about article length for now. The first task is to get the article looking better. There is plenty of dead wood we can remove once we accomplish that. --John (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

These things are way peripheral to that article. There are sub-articles where just about any of these points can be presented, but they don't belong in the top-level article. I'm surprised Torture and kidnapping carried out by US government using 9/11 as a pretext isn't already an article, but maybe it could go in a subsection of United States and state terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The non-appearance of the world's biggest air defense force was "peripheral" during an air attack? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Take a look at this article to gain a clue about how a balanced article is written. Observe especially the last three sentences in the Anticipating war section. --John (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to seem so clueless. What text exactly are you suggesting be added to the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

John, the Japanese navy was flying Japanese planes...you're asking us to make an analogy where there isn't one...hello....U.S. commercial passenger airliners with U.S. citizens (and others) were aboard the aircraft and they were hijacked...it was a different issue.--MONGO 22:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested text

To cover Point 5 I would suggest something along the lines of the following, and feel free to suggest improvements:

Air defense

The United States Air Force launched F-15 and F-16 fighters, but the airliners had their transponders switched off and were impossible to identify in the time available.[23][Brookes] The fighters had authorization to shoot down the hijacked planes,[24] but it is not clear whether they would have intercepted Flight 93 in time, had the surviving passengers and crew not caused the hijackers to crash the aircraft short of its target.[Gero] The 9/11 Commission reported that NORAD and the FAA were "unprepared" for the tactics used in the attacks, and that the protocols they used were "unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen."(p18) They also criticized NORAD for giving incorrect information in its testimony to the Commission about its response to the attacks.(p34) [25]

Haven't run down the references, but I don't have a problem with that. We could put it after the paragraph Some passengers were able and cut down the paras All aircraft within the continental U.S. were grounded and In a September 2002 interview, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, to make room. Not so sure about a sub-section on air defense, if that's what you're suggesting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed section omits the confusions faced by NORAD, the Air Force and Stratcom. If included it needs to show that in the confusion limited numbers of aircraft were activated to respond, fails to show that (I forget the time exactly) that fighters were in NYC airspace after the attacks and, from the info I have read, most sources make it clear that none of the hijacked planes could have been successfully intercepted before they reached their targets with the sole exception of possibly Flight 93, and even in that case, the inability to intercept 93 may have saved lives on the ground. I can see it now...the speculations that would pop up...if 93 was shot down and it came to light that this happened as passengers were trying to retake control of the aircraft.MONGO 11:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This Washington Post interview [26] (published today, but most of the information was previously available) covers the confusion and absence of preparedness well: there were no armed aircraft near Washington, so the orders were to ram Flight 93 to bring it down. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This info John is proposing is better off in a daughter article. Undue, coatrack...too much room for speculations. I'll come up with a section discussing this and put it in the article...under what heading should it be placed?MONGO 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If it takes too much space to present a complete account, it will have to go in a daughter article. And if stand-down appears, all bets are off. I think we can say something, but it should go in the Attacks section, and not have it's own sub-section. It might even be possible to integrate it into one of the existing paragraphs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Four short sentences, well-referenced to good sources, doesn't seem undue. No, it doesn't have to have its own section. --John (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have written in the air defense response but it varies from your rendition...but now this issue is in the article as you requested...the diff is here.--MONGO 01:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. TO be clear it is not just me highlighting these NPOV problems but multiple respected GA and FA regulars including Malleus and HJMitchell. I think whatever wording we finish up with should depend as far as possible on book sources rather than Internet news sources, per Karanacs, hence my going to the trouble of looking out book sources. It's a good start though. --John (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your version appeared to be primarily to assign guilt, so I altered it to simply state the case...you started out this line of argument, as did Malleus elsewhere, as to why the worlds largest air force "failed" to act..they never failed to act...the issue was time, and to some degree poor communications, and in retrospect, perhaps it is better the fighters didn't shoot down the airliners...book sources are fine, but I am finding that news sources (perhaps to this event being so big) are still valid and with the rate of editing this article gets, we can adjust to other refs if one goes dead. The nice thing also about a web based source is that one can see the exact wording much easier than they may be able to in a book, and we don't have to take the editor's word on it that the info is indeed on the page specified. I have written a fair share of FA's you know (there would be more if I didn't work a real job 50 plus hours a week)...so if you're thinking only Karanacs or Malleus are experts in FA's, that's a pretty small universe.--MONGO 01:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing quality

Can anyone else see any problems of concision and MoS compliance with this sentence: "On September 20, 2001, he addressed the nation and a joint session of the United States Congress regarding the events of September 11th, the subsequent nine days of rescue and recovery efforts, and stated his intended response to the attacks." In case it is just me. Thanks, --John (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it. Perhaps if you would point out your specific complaint. --Tarage (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom already had a decent hack at it. If I was grading this original wording in an English essay I would write a comment like: "Simpler is better" with a red underline under the comma after 11th. My suggested version (which was reverted) said "On September 20, 2001, he addressed the nation and a joint session of the United States Congress, and stated his intended response to the attacks." which to me carries almost the same meaning for 25/40 of the wordage. As I stated in my edit summary, I also find "regarding" a little stodgy. Tom's latest version is better than the original, as it removes the ungrammatical clumsiness of the sentence as it stood, but unfortunately at the cost of adding another word, and. I can live with the wording we have now in this section, and it is well-referenced to boot, though I still wish we could remove or replace the "regarding". But eventually I think (and I do speak from experience) that the whole article will need this kind of pruning for concision (to make it easier to read) and copyediting for grammar; several editors have remarked on this so it should not be controversial. Albeit there are other problems which we are discussing elsewhere, but I think this has to come. Let's be realistic and admit that this will be a matter of weeks, but let's also commit to making this article the best it can be, in all the areas where it has to improve. As a friendly suggestion, let's also commit to not reverting out any but the most obvious vandalism; this is how reverting is supposed to be used. Instead, try and find a compromise version, and hats off to Tom for showing the way on this occasion. --John (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to listen to your suggestions and read proposed wording, but you lost some credibility when it emerged after much discussion that "prose quality" was code for "it doesn't say what I want it to." Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean? --John (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We've dealt with quite a number of POV pushers in the past and, while this may not be what Tom is referring to, it feels to me like you are lining up to be one of them. The thread of delisting is a tad immature. --Tarage (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

In case editors didn't notice it, this article is undergoing a reassessment...the link to this is at the very top of this talkpage.MONGO 05:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

MTA made a video about its reflection to 9/11 yesterday

Is it all right for me to upload a video about the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's video about 9/11? Rockies77 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so - the video is likely copyrighted which means we can't use it outside very special circumstances. Hut 8.5 12:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Searching for 9/11 does not link the date September 11 or November 9

""9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or November 9. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation)."

The dates I bolded are the dates which are not in the link format, instead they are in the regular typing text format, with no links clickable to go to the actual dates September 11 or November 9.

Note: This occurs when searching for 9/11. It may occur when searching other terms or numbers, but I only tested searching 9/11 which is how I found out about this issue/problem.Andise1 (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Andise1

Fixed. --John (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)