Talk:September 11 attacks

WLRoss' edits to the Conspiracy theories section

In this edit [2], User:WLRoss appears to imply that National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers issued their 9/11 findings without conducting research; the de-facto effect of such an edit is to de-value their conclusions. The edit summary used by User:WLRoss claims prior consensus for his position - this looks rather strange and even nonsensical to me, but I'd like to discuss the issue here before reverting. Nsk92 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording "after their research" may be somewhat confusing. In particular, it may be interpreted to mean that NIST did research outside of the official investigation. We could perhaps write: "whose investigations concluded". Did ASCE do research on 9/11 as an institution, or did ASCE researchers write articles based on their individual research?  Cs32en Talk to me  21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Both NIST and ASCE reports were official institutional reports. The NIST report says so directly in its title[3]. The ASCE findings were reported in the congressional testimony of Gene Corley[4] which is marked at the title page as "On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers". WLRoss writes in his edit summary "deleted text that carried the implication that CD was researched" which conveys the implication that their findings were not researched and were sort of just pulled out of the thin air - which is certainly not the case. I think a wording like "whose research concluded" would be fine. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

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

Sourcing, including numbers of victims

This article has some sourcing issues, as I mentioned above before it got rather prematurely archived. Some of it isn't up to scratch (citing minor or college newspapers, or suspect ones (Fox, Judicial Watch), and some have simply been superseded by better sources, such as university imprints. I've noticed that there are several different figures cited for the numbers of victims. We have "almost 3,000" (Fox), 2996 (the Online Rocket, a minor college newspaper), and a slightly dodgy calculation (methodologically) made from various CNN figures to get 2753. There's also a 2752 unsourced for the total dead at the WTC alone (CNN had it at 2606). The info box has "approximately 3000". This has to be sorted out. Is there no official estimate available? In addition, I do not think MONGO's insistence that the UNSC statement should be linked to the lede statement about the attacks is valid. It was one day after the attacks. The books cited use the word terrorist, and if there really is controversy over the word terrorist (lunatics aside) then there should be a section on it. It's simply not a good source. It's just as bad as truthers using confused news reports in the days afterwards as evidence for anything. We have clearer, more reliable sources later after the events. The UNSC is a good source for what the UNSC thought, but not much else.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing from reliable news sources depends on the date of issuance...the most recent news reports will likely provide the most up to date numbers...books not readily available to those not able to access them via a library aren't always as good for sourcing as a clickable URL for this web based platform encyclopedia...so perhaps both a printed book source and a web source for is best. There is no exact known dead...ABC News as of 2005 put the number at 2,749 at the WTC counting those on the two planes [5]...when you combine that with the 184 at the Pentagon counting the plane that hit it and the 40 on flight 93 [6]...that totals near to 3,000 and some sources do not list the 19 hijackers while others do....bear in mind that due to the unknowns (possibly illegal alien workers in the WTC) we may never have a exact number.--MONGO 05:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition...we're surely not going to create a "section" in the article discussing the use of the term terrorist...look at the top of this page under the FAQ's and see why we're not going to do that.--MONGO 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh no - I wasn't actually suggesting creating a section on the use of the term terrorist. I was being a little sarcastic - my apologies if that didn't come across. I just don't think we need to worry about whether or not we attach the UNSC's description in the lede like that. Where it was, it looked like a source for the fact the attacks were AQ etc etc, and it isn't such a source. As for the numbers - the problem is, it's OR to add numbers together like that because they come from different sources, and different times, possibly using different methods. (It's not like adding up figures in a table produced by one source using consistent methodology, which isn't OR). If there are no exact numbers, then I suggest that we be more explicit about that, and give a few of the proper RS estimates as an example of the degree of uncertainty (i.e. not much) as well as the rough number. There is a page (Casualties of the September 11 attacks) to which people can be directed.

I've tracked down what we can take as an authoritative official source for total WTC deaths - the New York Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. (I should have thought of going there before, really). They put out this, which details total recognised deaths. I suggest we use this where possible. The Pentagon death numbers seem stable, as do the other airplanes. I'll re-do the sourcing when I have the time to concentrate, as it'll be fiddly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Requested move

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

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

September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks — It doesn't make any sense not to specify the year. Even if many people refer to it as just "September 11", it isn't specific enough. To someone who hasn't heard of the event, calling it the "September 11 attacks" makes it sound like an annual event. Compare 7 July 2005 London bombings. If the event doesn't have an actual name, then we need to give it a descriptive encyclopaedic name. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Or to 11 September 2001 attacks? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Since this is a U.S. event, the U.S. date conventions need to be used in the title. In this regard "September 11, 2001 attacks" is preferable to "11 September 2001 attacks". Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Are the attacks ever refered to as such? It's common in the UK to say "September 11" in relation to this event, even though that is contrary to UK date conventions. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• It is common to refer to this event as simply 9/11. If there is to be a move, this would be my prefered choice per WP:COMMONNAME. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's the best title in my opinion because the attacks were so massive unless there are another set of equally large attacks on a September 11, then there's no need to move the page.

The London bombings were on a much, much, smaller scale.

It doesn't make any sense to specify the year, the date will be forever remembered as September 11, and is beyond commonplace when referring to the most devastating terrorist attacks in history.

Everyone has heard of September 11, for those that haven't will realise what it is by clicking on the article, and will understand why it's kind of bad-mannered or blunt to stick a 2001 in the title.

John Cengiz talk 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Additional Comment I would oppose any move to 9/11. It's unencyclopaedic and parochial. (fine as a redirect, of course).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Extended content

The following discussion 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. Edit request from Develooper, 14 October 2010 {{edit semi-protected}} I would like to change the Belligerents to "Unknown" because there is no true evidence that al-Qaeda did it. Not even FBI hold Usama bin Laden as a suspect to 9/11. Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Reference: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden Develooper (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Please provide a citation for the quotation. Powers T 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) This has been discussed numerous times. Please consult the archives. If the matter has changed, present new information, sources and arguments. 79.204.37.211 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See above. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Edit request from Smithdennis, 21 October 2010 {{edit semi-protected}} My father Dennis Smith is the author of Report from Ground Zero which is about 9/11. Could someone please add this information to the 9/11 page. Smithdennis (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Edit request from Tsbrewster, 22 October 2010 {{edit semi-protected}} Common, if this site wants real credibility then it must show the facts about 9/11 otherwise the site and its owners at as evil as those who murdered over 1 million people. That's taking into account those killed because of the 9/11 inside job Tsbrewster (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC) No thanks. This article isn't for conspiracy theorizing. Please see what Wikipedia is not. Antandrus (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)  Not done: as above. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Factual Ommissions The authors of this article seem rather aggressive towards the so called "conspiracy theories" even when legitamate, foreign media supports the idea. The 9/11 Truth Movement seems mainstream enough to warrent at least a paragraph in this article, due to relavance of the topics. This is especially true in light of the videos released recently via the freedom of information act. (Available Online @ http://www.faz.net/s/RubB08CD9E6B08746679EDCF370F87A4512/Doc~E42B92739BDBE45AA877FBE5A5D988202~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html) The whole conspiracy theories chapter is more of a rant rather than a summary of the article 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which is itself almost just as big as the main September 11 attacks article. This warrents a re-write by somebody who has educated themselves on the subject. Remember: if enough people believe elaphants to be immortal, it will become fact. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The conspiracy theorists have been shown to be false on numerous occasions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Only the ones you know of. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) No Soxwon (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to respectfully request for the following text, "Conspiracy theorists question the official version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in independent investigations. Some of the conspiracy theories see the attacks as a casus belli through a false flag to bring about increased militarization and police power. Some proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories have speculated that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was instead demolished with explosives. This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who, after their research, concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Towers." to be changed to: "Some polls show that a growing number of Americans reject the official statements, either believing that President Bush or members of his administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen or engineered the attacks as a casus belli to justify a war of aggresion in Iraq and Afghanistan and create support for martial law. Proponants of the conspiracy theory speculate that reports of secondary explosions by eye-witnesses at ground zero are consistant with archive video footage of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings One, Two, and Seven, depicting explosions and a collapse comparable to a controlled demolition. Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims, some individuals, such as members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have aquired forensic evidence which, they believe, prove the aircraft impacts were not a factor of the collapse. The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone." The two sources from the previous text can be kept, along with the aforementioned link. There are many polls which can be used as a source for the first statement. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Lots of Americans believe that they've been abducted by aliens. That merits a one-line mention in extra-terrestrial life, it doesn't make alien abduction a fact. You also might want to read the German of the Frankfurter Allgemeine link. It more or less reads "Here we go with another round of conspiracy theorists going off on one". (I do love this idea that the world is just one properly worded freedom of information act away from uncovering the trooth about the complicity of thousands and thousands of people, many of whom voluntarily helped to kill their friends and relatives. It's kind of sweet, in a macabre way. But it's not encyclopaedic.) There's a reason why, no matter how hard you try, you'll never convince people in the reality-based community that elephants are immortal. They die. OK? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Well said, couldn't have summarized it better.--MONGO 04:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) My point is that the current version is too light for what that chapter links to. That text has no relavance at all. Cheers. 174.89.55.112 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Your point gives the issue undue weight, as was pointed out more eloquently above, and inserts things like "Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims...", itself a reflexive dismissal. Also, as I have pointed out many times in this context, "The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone" is factually incorrect - steel frame structures collapse due to fire on a daily basis. Part of a steel-framed mall in California collapsed last week in a fire that was not aggressively fought. The WTC buildings are the only tall steel structures to do so, part of a very small subset of steel structures, few of which have suffered such extensive fires. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Undue weight would only be an issue if the 9/11 conspiracy theories page was a stub of nonsense. Considering it nonsense automatically is rather biased, especially in a world where wars are typically started with false-flags. Cheers. 174.89.55.112 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Okay look, you clearly aren't a new editor. For whatever reason you have decided to stay an anonymous editor, which is usually fine. However, we have had quite a few single purpose accounts that for whatever reason try to push one view on the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. These people also tend to not get the hint, and create sockpuppets to continue the fight even after they are banned. Please note that in no way am I implying you are one of these people. I have no idea, and it would be inappropriate to judge so soon. However, it is something you need to be aware of before we go forward. I need you to realize that while what you are presenting may sound sane and rational to you, it goes against what the established consensus is. This consensus has been formed after countless people trying to change it, and far more voting to keep it the same. The current article is not biased. The current article is fine. Adding more information about conspiracy theories would ad undue weight, even if you don't think it would. This is what the consensus says. If you have a problem with it, I'm sorry. It isn't going to change because one editor wills it to. There is a mountain of reliable sources standing against you, so if you are dead set on changing the established consensus, the first step is to present numerous reliable sources that back up your claim. Until then, please refraim from soapboxing on this issue. And please be aware of the discretionary actions that we are capable of taking against unruly editors because of an arbitration case. This is not a threat, I just want you to be aware of it. --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC) The first people involved in space research were arrested because what they discovered contradicted the established consensus at the time. Though I'm not trying to change consensus here in any way, I'm just bringing up the issue that this article leaves out many, many details simply because you all know that those conspiracy theories are true. I really don't want to soapbox here over matters of opinion, but the small chapter about conspiracy theories should be a summary of the conspiracy theories article, not an opinion piece about conspiracy theorists. That small blurb of text was written with a bias - please do not tell me otherwise. Sure, my replacement text was biased too, but at least it was all factual. Cheers. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Just for the record, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was founded partly by the guy that you (can see in this link via the video).......hope he isn't involved in the design/construction of anything important.--MONGO 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Just for the record: Bilderberg Group - Your government keeps too many secrets anyways. They use the classification levels to hide criminal activity. Cheers. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Just for the record, Wikipedia allows the Greys article, even though the existance of the alien grey is not an established fact. Everyone here keeps the September 11 attacks article at a higher standard than all other Wikipedia articles, (most of which are garbage anyway). Allowing some pro-conspiracy rhetoric to this article where appropriate is not un-encyclopedic at all, but rather you choose to emphasises how gullible you all are with your bias. Cheers. 174.89.58.95 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC) There are also wikipedia articles on unicorns, dragons and the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary. That doesn't mean the article on Zoology should mention them. You may not have noticed, but there is actually a page called 9/11 conspiracy theories. That's perhaps where you should be posting your comments, rather than on this one. It's great that you've read "most of" Wikipedia, by the way. Quite a feat. It's difficult to accept charges of gullibility from you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC) There is also mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main September 11 attacks article. How about making that small stub a bit more accurate, and less biased? PS, what do unicorns have to do with this, boy? The issue here is bias. Cheers. 174.89.58.95 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Edit request from 70.112.110.204, 29 October 2010 {{edit semi-protected}} This Article is still under investigation and is not considered 100% accurate 70.112.110.204 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)  Not done; no specific request made. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (e/c) This is an empty request as you haven't asked for any specific edit to be made. If you do come back here with an actual request, it should provide a reliable source that verifies what you seek to add, it should be set forth in neutral language, and it should be something that is appropriate with due regard to weight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC) {{edit semi-protected}} I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories: Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories[7]. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Edit Request {{edit semi-protected}} I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories: Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories[8]. No. It's a blog. The text in any case has been removed. Please read policy on reliable sources, if you haven't already done so. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I don't see any reliable sources on the September 11 attacks page. "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11" is the first referance; Osama is a reliable source? 174.89.58.95 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC) That particular argument's been tried before. It's been reported by reliable sources and reflects a general consensus of news sources. The HuffPo piece no longer exists and in any case isn't an RS. Your request and the post above seem to be aimed more at making a point than improving the article. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Edit Request {{edit semi-protected}} I would like to respectfully request that the following text: "Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was instead demolished with explosives." Be changed to: "Conspiracy theorists reject any official reports and preform their own independant investigations. Proponants of conspiracy theories believe that the official reports on the collapse are not consistant with video footage of the World Trade Center collapse." Sounds reasonable. What is the source for the in formation?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC) http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/10/21/3044273.htm?site=melbourne http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Elizabeth+moment+truth/3743613/story.html I don't see the virtue in it. Most conspiracy theorists don't do their own research, just as most people who believe in the big bang don't do their own research. Additionally, some conspiracy theorists do not dispute that the buildings were brought down by the planes crashing into them - they dispute who organized it and so on. The current statement is accurate. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Can you produce a source to verify your statement? 174.89.58.95 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I agree, the current wording seems much better than the suggested change. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not impressed with either one - the conspiracy theory spectrum spans a wide range between "Mohammed Atta is a convenient scapegoat" and ""WTC was nuked." A focus on the failure mechanism of the WTC is too specific. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC) If you read the entire section September 11 attacks#Conspiracy theories, you'll see that it does mention a range of various types of conspiracy theories related to 9/11. Nsk92 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 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.

Archiving and or deleting, again...

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

This is a prime example of why you can see you're wasting your time dealing with IP single purpose accounts (IP 174.89.58.95)....nothing but a troll and now blocked...he/she starts out first sounding somewhat sane here and here, but shows his/her true colors in last postings like this and lastly with this wonderful edit summary...all in just one day--MONGO 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quickly archiving and collapsing such threads is a good idea, but removing talk page comments is more problematic and, IMO, should only be done in case of clear disruption - vandalism, soapboxing etc. As you say, 174.89.58.95 started out the above thread sounding reasonably sane and at that point still deserved to be treated as a good faith editor; simply removing his/her comments would have been inappropriate at the time. I have little patience and little sympathy for conspiracy theories proponents, but at least some of them are attempting to act in good faith here, and while they do that, they do deserve at least a minimal modicum of polite treatment. Of course, once someone becomes clearly unhinged, like this edit here[9], they should be quickly blocked (in fact I would give longer blocks in such cases) and any threads they might have started should be closed, archived and collapsed. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If the advocacy (signal to noise ratio, etc.) exceeds the effort, then all we end up with more talkpage archives and no article improvement...it is unlikely that CT proponents will be formulative in getting this page to become a featured article....but I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum, even in the face of sometimes overt wackiness....that is a skill I do not have.--MONGO 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect our IP friend was a sock, perhaps Tachyonbursts. The manner of speech was quite similar. It doesn't really matter though, this was the right course of action. Either way, if things get too bad with random IPs we could simply lock the page from IP editing. I doubt we would lose any valuable contributions. --Tarage (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

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

Sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]

The attacks are very controversial, and many citizens and politicians alike are still divided over this issue. I would like to see this expanded on in a new or pre-existing section since this is on topic and sourced. Thank you for your co-operation. 76.68.52.131 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No.--MONGO 19:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The above IP...76.68.52.131 comes from the same location as blocked IP 174.89.58.95...check it out for yourselves...here...and...here--MONGO 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --Tarage (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... looks like our IP friend has stated[14] that he has no intention of stopping, so I requested an indefinite semi-protect. --Tarage (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser may turn up a link to a regular user...they may consider that fishing though since I haven't a clue who it could be. They generally only semi-protect talkpages for a brief time.--MONGO 11:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the solution is to grant IP his request for a fair treatment of opposing views. IP is quite right when he states that the article is biased and that it needs to adopt a more neutral stance. His action is clearly vandalism but in the circumstances, it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox to promote either the majority or the minority view. As it is now, this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government. Oclupak (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)