Talk:September 11 attacks

Article structure

Has there been previous discussion on the article structure? It seems jarring to me that the attacks are described first, and then the background, planning, and motivation is the second major section. That is out of order - we are throwing readers into the middle of the event without letting them know how we got there. To me, it would make much more sense to have a layout more similar to:

• Background or Planning (Much of what is in the Attackers and their background section)
  • Motives
  • Planning of the Attacks
  • Attackers
• Attacks
  • Events
  • Casualties
  • Damage
• Rescue and recovery (include info about fighters scrambling)
• Response
  • Military operations
  • Hate crimes (roll in Muslim-American reaction)
  • International response
• Investigations
  • FBI investigation
  • 9/11 Commission
  • Collapse of the World Trade Center
  • Internal review of the CIA
• Legacy
  • Economic
  • Health
  • Legal
  • Culture
  • etc

Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The layout was mentioned here not too long ago. Most articles about recent attacks and atrocities are laid out like this, first describing the events before going on to discuss who did it and why. It has the advantage that it fits with the typical reader's experience of events - a reader who was paying any attention to current events in 2001 will have first heard about the attacks before going on to learn about the hijackers later. Hut 8.5 15:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? That seems a little perverse. Can we have a link to the discussion, and if possible links to other articles which do it this way, please? Are any of them GA or FA standard? I agree with Karanacs that the article should have a more logical flow than it currently does. --John (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this came up a few weeks ago and there were some changes based on that. I think the way forward is incremental change - shortening and merging paragraphs, judiciously adding material, and working on daughter articles. Wholesale rewrites are unnecessary, especailly when they substantially change the focus and scope. If it's going to be a whole different article, someone can just go write a whole different article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is here. 7 July 2005 London bombings, 2004 Madrid train bombings, Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Virginia Tech massacre are all laid out like this. Hut 8.5 15:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

You're certainly welcome to do that. If it's better it will attract consensus support. If you don't want to for whatever reason, you could take a stab at Legacy of the War on Terror. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

John, we're counting on you to clean this mess up! I have no doubt your redention of the events (based on your previous suggestions) will make for a far superior article.MONGO 16:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a team effort, and will take the involvement of multiple people to clean up the mess. The more we can get content writers involved rather than "Defenders of the Wiki" the easier this will be. I view the GAR and Karanacs' suggestions here as very positive in this regard. --John (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I don't entirely agree with Karanac's suggested structure, but it's certainly an improvement on what's there now. In particular it's very obvious to me that the background to the attacks just has to come first, else the later explanations are back-filling the story. And it certainly isn't true to say that all articles of this type are written in the way this one is, take a look at my 1996 Manchester bombing for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more...we're not going to marginalize the event itself with a slurry of POV pushing background junk. And John, you're right, we need content editors, afterall, I have never added content here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.MONGO 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, this statement really disturbs me -> "we're not going to marginalize the event itself" because it implies to me that there is an unstated goal here of presenting a non-POV article; one that offers Proper Memorialization and shows the accepted US POV. The goal should be to present a factual, non-POV article that is comprehensive and clear to the readers. The structure of the article should have zero bearing on whether or not it is POV. If the structure HAS to remain a certain way because of POV concerns, then I think there are much, much larger problems with the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail right on the head Karanacs. This article is designed as some kind of memorial, not an encyclopedic account of the events of that day. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is worth a read on the subject. I do recognize the sensitivity of this area, especially to Americans. It would honor the dead and the living more to present an accurate and fair article than a slanted and incomplete one, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Americans for years supported terrorists in other parts of the world, including Ireland, thinking that it wouldn't affect them. Horrifying as this attack was, there's a substantial body of opinion that America got a wake-up call on 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Americans also funded and supported the organizations that later became Al Qaeda, and were happy to promulgate terrorism as long as it was embarrassing the Soviet Union. However, this is still a very sensitive area for them, as Tony Bennett recently found out. --John (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sad. "Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind." Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about whether an article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You may turn as many deaf ears as you like to the obvious truth that this article is a memorial, not an encyclopedic account. And until you wake up to that fact there is no point in nominating it again at either GAN or FAC. Perhaps you're happy with that state of affairs, but you ought to be embarrassed by it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I have never seen more blatant POV pushing in my life... Not only are you guys wanting to give CTs more weight, you want to add your own CT about how the US caused 9/11, blah blah blah blah... This article is about the attacks. Not the causes of 9/11, not the legacy of 9/11, not the International claims that 9/11 was caused by the US, not the Conspiracy theories related to 9/11, not the Supposed American support of foreign terrorism and how it caused 9/11... This article is about the attacks. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to add an article about those subjects, perhaps you can click on those links and begin there. Toa Nidhiki05 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One cannot place the attacks in proper historical perspective without knowing the causes and the legacy; the article cannot be comprehensive without some discussion of these. Plenty of information has been written by scholarly sources about all of it. At the very least, the fact that there are conspiracy theories which have gotten lots of press and been debunked needs to be mentioned. 9/11 has an interesting place in American culture, and that is not shown in this article at all. Plenty of quality sources cover it. This article does not. This is the parent article for everything that's in the 9/11 template - so why is so much of that information not summarized here? Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because this is about the attacks, not the CTs or anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 20:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs: There is discussion of the causes and legacy in the article. Maybe it can be better written or expanded, but that will take time. I've begun researching better sources for the article.[2] If you would like to help, you are more than welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like anyone's welcome here unless they toe the party line, so the article is doomed to be sub-par forever. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to write the [[Very Best 9/11 Article Ever^(TM) That Encompasses All Possible and Impossible Explanations, Conspiracies and Musings Imagined by Disaffected Lunatics]]. It should be well sourced. --DHeyward (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why russians can dedicate more than half of their September 11 article to the conspiracy theory? --Javalenok (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Russians have always been into conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you support your statement? --Javalenok (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, I do honestly believe the article can use major restructuring, but in my opinion, it's best we stick with the narrative of the attacks themselves and then dwelve into the motivations for, the investigations and other issues. By restructing, I didn't think we shouldn't explain as the first part when: on September 11th, 2001...who: al-Qaeda...what: hijacked planes, crashed them into buildings, etc....where: NYCity, VA, PA....and then get to the why and their rationale etc. I believe it's best to explain these things firsthand.--MONGO 01:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, how would you restructure it? I'm certainly not wedded to my proposal, but I think it makes more sense to an uninformed reader to provide the background first (and that's by far the most common structure for articles on historical events). Karanacs (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you think that your proposal is the way to make it a more narrative account, then no reason not to do it and see how it ends up.--MONGO 05:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

An article to which, as a matter of slight interest, I am the second-highest contributor.[3] Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Let me be frank. I find the usual "blame all round" attitude here at Wikipedia to be deeply offensive and contrary to any known system of logic. The article could easily be fixed, but it won't be without endless battles. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I on the other hand am offended by your endless insistence that things don't work, can't work and won't work and that you certainly won't contribute to changing that. You are wasting a lot of valuable time here, not least your own. No evverybdy else: back to work making this article and all of the other ones work, by a process of compromising, building consensus and moving forward slowly and steadily without looking back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just drop it Maunus, you've won. Do whatever you like with the article, but if it's ever brought back to GAN or FAC in anything like its present state don't be surprised by the result. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't win. I'm not playing a game you see. I agree completely that the article needs a lot of work before it is ready for GA or FA status. And I also think I agree with you more or less about what kinds of changes would be required. But I know that it can be done, if enough people decide they want to give it a try in a collaborative, collegial manner.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are, but in your defence far from the only one dancing around. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Current events vs history

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

I agree with the comment above that the details may need to be spun off. Timeline of the September 11 attacks already exists and would be a great repository. For Battle of the Alamo, I spun off almost two weeks worth of events - about which thousands of pages have been written in scholarly works - into a daughter article Siege of the Alamo. I didn't want to do it because that was info that I was taught in school and very, very familiar with, but it was required to ensure the parent article could be fully comprehensive and at a level that made sense for readers not already indoctrinated in Texas history. This article is the parent article for a whole host of children, as noted in the template. Each and every one of those children (and some that have yet to be written) needs to be summarized in some way in this article or it is not comprehensive (or the children shouldn't exist). Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a very reasonable approach to me. This is an historical event, and history can only be understood in context. lots of context.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an American, so I have a different view. The suggestion I've seen made that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Who said that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Try looking for it, as I would have to do but don't have the energy for. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to make a ridiculous claim like that, please back it up with proof. Toa Nidhiki05 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I did look, I didn't see it. Even if somone did say this, this is Wikipedia. People say crazy things here all the time. It would never gain consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the insults. If I find the diff what will you give me? Even more abuse, or a big kiss? Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How am I insulting you? I asked you for proof and you have yet to give any. That's not insulting. Toa Nidhiki05 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're calling me a liar. Not a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You are making an inflammatory accusation and then are getting insulted when people can't find it and request proof of it, so far as to make a minor threat. Looks to me like you are looking for a fight. Perhaps you should cool your head. --Tarage (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's on a user talkpage and it's really fairly clear that only Americans should be editing the this page. As an American, I was embarrassed to read it. We should be better than that. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should examine your conscience, if you have one. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. I haven't been editing this article for a while, and now I see why. If I weren't involved, your last few statements would result in an immediate block for WP:NPA, and a request at WP:AN for a permanent ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just try it, and see where you end up. I doubt you'll enjoy it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tone it down a notch, MF. --DHeyward (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diff where MONGO says "Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans." which is likely to be what Malleus is referring to. I'll forgo any big kisses for digging out that diff, but it's a good reminder that we should all avoid stereotyping each other and making false claims about each other. --John (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not a diff showing any evidence that myself or anyone else claimed only Americans should edit this article. It's merely a comment stating what I find to be an alarming trend...and if indeed it is true, it wouldn't be the first time to draw such a conclusion.--MONGO 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In kind, please explain this (there are other examples) where in discussion elsewhere about this article that the article to remain a toilet patrolled by nationalists...who are the nationalists, John?--MONGO 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Where did you learn to count? Or more accurately, fail to learn to count? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Amazing, isn't it? Shirtwaist ☎ 23:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Two main comments:

• (1) It should never be necessary to state on this talk page that you are American and pray for the victims.
• (2) It should be obvious that this is now recent history and not current events. However, some of the consequences and responses are still current events, and recent history is still hard to properly encapsulate. The relative weighting of various aspects of this will change over the next ten years. This doesn't preclude writing as good an article now as is possible, but it is something to be aware of, mainly by writing the article to retain a degree of flexibility for future rewriting.

One idea is to see how similar articles have handled this, though it is difficult to find articles about recent (past ten years) events with ongoing consequences that have been kept properly updated as time passes. The only ones I can think of offhand are natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Terrorism articles that may provide ideas include 2002 Bali bombings, 2004 Madrid train bombings, 7 July 2005 London bombings, and 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. Though of course the September 11 attacks are different in scale and more has been written about them. Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we draw the parallels with Russian apartment bombings? --Javalenok (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with Encyclopedia Britannica article

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

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

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

I agree that the article places too much of an emphasis on memorializing and too little on analysis of the events and their impact. This is an understandable side effect of the sourcing - and the newspaper sources were the best that was available for a long time. At this point, it's time to start perusing the books and see what kind of weighting the literature in general gives to the various pieces. It's difficult to make a good judgement of "X" paragraphs/percent to this piece and "Y" paragraphs/percent to that piece without seeing how it's handled elsewhere. Starting with other encyclopedias is a great idea. Karanacs (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tom harrison and Karanacs...but I don't agree that using other encyclopedias as a template is the way to go. Book sourcing needs to be increased as Karanacs mentions, but in terms of history, this event is still relatively recent so there is no reason to not use news sourcing if that is available. Using webbased sourcing is helpful since it allows for greater ease of source checking by all and since the cites allow for parameters which displays in the refs when the news report was made and when it was cited, it is easy to update/or remove refs if they go dead.MONGO 11:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is available online really shouldn't be a consideration; many of my FAs have no online sources. One can google "September 11" and find hundreds of thousands of online pages if that's what someone wants to see. This article should use the best sources, and books, which tend to have analysis, trump newspapers 99% of the time. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I completely disagree with you and I have written some FA's too. Half the books I've seen on this event are full of opinionated editorializing and not everyone has access to a library or the time to go to one where they CAN check the refs.MONGO 15:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Things have changed quite a bit in the almost three years since you last wrote an FA. Rather few web sites would be considered high-quality reliable sources these days. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

- thought you stated you were going to have no further involvement in this article? So articles that utilize web sourcing which is updated semi-annually or at least annually is less reliable (such as the plethora of U.S. Government websites) than a book written by one person and published by a book seller whose motivation may be less geared toward accuracy and more towards sales...that's idiotic...MONGO 16:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

When did I last touch the article? I'm just trying (and clearly failing) to teach you something you're equally obviously not prepared to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at your Shoshone National Forest FA for instance, which is suffering badly from link rot. That's the reality of online sourcing, not regular updates. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried using web.archive.org on them? That should stifle much of the link rot... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not my job to fix the links. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Then do tell, what is your job? Other than pushing POV and harassing editors. --Tarage (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

US government sources are essentially primary sources for this topic. For history articles, we need the analysis. There is definitely a risk of having articles weighted too heavily toward one pet theory, which is why these articles need to rely on LOTS of books. Otherwise, in a topic this widely covered, it is extremely difficult to decide how much weight subtopics should garner. Karanacs (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs:

• I've created a list of books in we can use as potential sources:User:A Quest For Knowledge/September 11 attacks - Books. I'm not sure how to judge how high the quality of the sources are although the Looming Tower did win a Pulitzer. If you have any insight, I'd greatly appreciate it. BTW, Tom has a list as well: User:Tom harrison/sources.
• I agree that sources from the US government are essentially primary sources. But I think we have to judge each one on its own merits. The 9/11 Commission Report, for example, has an excellent reputation and is one of the most frequently cited sources on this topic. But I'm not sure how the editors at FAC judge these sort of things.
• I would still like to get this article to GA and FA status. It will be a lot of work, but I think it can be done. However, my strategy has shifted a bit. Rather than work on this article, I want to read the books in my list, write articles about them, bring those articles to GA and maybe FA status. I'm not sure if I want to do that first, or do that concurrently with this article.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus....the potential for a topic ban for you was due to your talkpage "contributions" not your editing. AQFK...the entire GA and FA process is broken...while no doubt I concur that such tagged articles should improve in quality over time, it doesn't mean the website should have to contend with the high minded pettiness and self appointed "experts" that now haunt these processes. I've looked over some FA's written by both Malleus and Karanacs and I think they suck...so what you're dealing with here is a clique that too busy patting each other on the back to be worth your bother. This article need a slow incremental improvement, not a wholescale rewrite.MONGO 18:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just quit with your bullying bluster; you're not impressing anyone, and certainly not me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's a bit rich that someone with your level of skill with the English language as displayed even in your posting above, never mind those ancient FAs you keep harping on about, should have the temerity to criticise the writing of others. Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quest's and Tom's book list are both good. I think not all books are equally reliable as sources, and we need to consider each on it's own merit.... some publishers like university presses publish more scholarly works, some authors are more highly regarded, etc. Looming Tower is a good one. Also, there were quite a number of good, in-depth articles in The New Yorker and other such places. Here are some other sources [4]. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried. My experience shows that mentioning "New Pearl Harbor" "as opportunity for American Imperialism" is not allowed here despite these statements are made by the first US people in reputable sources exactly to define the historic meaning of events. --Javalenok (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because what you are trying to insert is very not NPOV. Just because something has a few reliable sources does not make it NPOV. You should know better. --Tarage (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Farmer

I've reverted the following new addition to the article.[5] The main reason is that is that the new content doesn't really tell the reader anything useful. The new content says that politicians and military officials were dishonest, but doesn't tell us how the they were dishonest. It doesn't tell us anything specific, just a general allegation with no detail. It's sizzle without the steak. I'm not opposed to adding something to the article, but not this. If someone wants to propose new text, that's fine. But we have to weigh whatever new content we add into the article with everything else in the article says to make sure it all fits in together. And also keep in mind that the article is long. We should try to resist the temptation to add new stuff without also considering what we're going to remove to make room. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the "content" argument above, but editors needn't consider length if they wish to add to this article. If an article is considered too long, someone else will (eventually) address the issue, so please don't hesitate to add content (obviously within other policies and guidelines). Note that "long" is subjective and dependent on topic, and that there are currently 786 articles longer than this one. GFHandel ♬  04:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There are also currently 14 FAs longer than this one. Shirtwaist ☎ 08:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve seen this item up for discussion elsewhere in the past. It seems to be an example of 9/11 Truth Movement “quote mining”. My understanding is that Farmer does mention resistance to the investigation from military government officials, but doesn’t see this as anything especially unusual or detrimental to the investigation, being something fairly typical of any investigation into the possible negligence or wrongdoing of such people. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 14:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Iraq authority asks "Why do they need to interrogate our undergraduates?" but still allows inspectors (US intelligence agents who provided Pentagon with bombing coordinates) to interrogate them, it is not "fully cooperating" and needs to be bombed immediately. --Javalenok (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? Nothing. --Tarage (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

e-book?

This page and others seems to be an e-book available for $2.51.[6] I don't see any author credits. Does anyone know something about this? (Found the author credits, so that probably satisfies the licensing.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats weird...when one can simply pull up the web and see it here for free.--MONGO 04:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon. I've seen several "books" on Amazon that are just repackaged Wikipedia articles. It's a complete rip-off, and Amazon will take them down if notified. Of course, that old P. T. Barnum phrase comes to mind: "There's a sucker born every minute." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a scam: "High-quality content from Wikipedia" repackaged, printed on demand and sold for a hefty price if you want it in dead-tree form, or sent to your Kindle for a bit less. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

you call this neutral?

This article is just not neutral, even in the "see also" section!! very very stubborn guys work on this article. You may want me to come up with an example, but that's funy to me since the Talk page starts like this "...Although the mainstream media has reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact..." blah, blah, balh. You guys can't accept "a little" criticism. Let the other side breath a little, if not talk. I came to help, but it's like you've taken the door knob while asking me please open the door. lapsking (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

They think they own the article, it looks kind of like doo-doo to me and is written like poo but if somebody else tries to improve it you cause Ego-hurt and they revert it. Say by the way do you know of a good article I can read on the September 11 attacks? I was curious how tall the twin towers were, what side of the buildings the planes hit, what floors were impacted, how fast the planes were going, what were they "heavily fueled" with- unleaded gasoline or highly volatile Jet fuel?. etc.etc.etc. While a literary gem writing like this is not very informative:

At 8:46 a.m., five hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center's North Tower (1 WTC), and at 9:03 a.m., another five hijackers crashed United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower (2 WTC)

7mike5000 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lapsking, it is true that a small group of editors who frequent this article have experienced some difficulty with collaborating, cooperating, and compromising with other editors. The RfC to add the 9/11 conspiracy theories link to the See Also section was such a landslide against their position, however, that perhaps they have now reconsidered their attitude. If you have any additions you would like to make to the article, please go ahead and try to add them. I believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories link needs to be added to the navigation template, and the FAQ answer you mention probably needs to be amended. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

As for other changes, work is ongoing to tighten the article, reducing duplicate material that is already present in daughter articles such as American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, World Trade Center, Collapse of the World Trade Center and others. The article is seen by many editors as unwieldy at present, so improvements should favor concision if possible, rather than including every possible fact or statistic relating to airplane speed, building height, etc. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your position 100 percent ... that it should reflect what is out there - not total exclusion. As you can tell I also believe some sort of small notation/mention should be forth coming.Moxy (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the misattribution! Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've been watching this page for some time (as a spectator more interested in procedural aspects of WP), so as a suggestion ... instead of bleeding new links into the "See also" section, would it be possible to put one "switchboard" link there (e.g. to {{Category:9/11_conspiracy_theories}} or similar)? That way people who are interested in such things, can quickly go to a page where they can find other links. It would seem to me that having lots of similar links in the "See also" section is starting to look like WP:Undue there. GFHandel ♬  00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting link idea - I think it is better we confront the issues over more links to other sub CT pages. I believe context should be given to the subject. Explanation is due before linkage in this case as to me the "See also" simply leads readers to articles riddled with POV sources that advances the one cause as per each CT article. We should not be afraid to say in this article that CT's hold no merit in the academic community. Omitting the issues here and just linking CT's gives no proper neutrality on the subject for our readers.Moxy (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A Template containing all articles related to "11 september attacks" is another good to avoid too many "See Also" links in my opinion. But beside these links and templates, there must be a section dedicated to "conspiracy theories" in main article, at least a paragraph or two. Consipiracy theories exist wether you like them or not, so the article should contain that, only a little link in "See Also" almost means nothing.lapsking (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And still it's not neutral. Neutral means containing all theories, wether it's most believed theory or consipiracy theory. It must be multi-perspective to be neutral, refelecting only one theory while there exists some other theories (with reliable sources) almost means NOT neutral. lapsking (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

So why are we not saying this in the article? I am sure we all agree they do exist regardless of there credibility. We cant simply ignor the mass about of data on this subject that is widely available. Regardless of what someone believes the fact is that there are CT's that have been widely reported and written about by neutral third parties. Moxy (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"zero engineering, zero investigative and zero reputable scientists support any of the conspiracy theories."... Zero doesn't exist in realtiy. see? that's what I'm talking about stubborn kids. They only can read what they would like to write. Their brains are fossilized with the help of media. --lapsking (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

just a little copy/paste from the very article you mentioned: "It has been claimed that action or inaction by U.S. officials with foreknowledge was intended to ensure that the attacks took place successfully. For example, Michael Meacher, former British environment minister and member of Tony Blair's Cabinet has stated that the United States knowingly failed to prevent the attacks.[67][68] Author David Ray Griffin alleges that the 9/11 conspiracy was considerably larger than the government claims and that the entire 9/11 Commission Report "is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true."[69] An FBI supervisor involved in the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui sent a message in August 2001 to his superiors in Washington that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center."[70] Some of the FBI agents involved in that investigation felt they were being thwarted by the government.[71]"... there are a lot more, but closed [eyes can't] see. lapsking (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1% of the plate doesn't get 50% of the pie.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

but it should get %1 of the plate at least wich it doesn't, it only takes %0 of the article (don't tell me there is a little link in "See Also" which requiers a microscope to recognize it.). And it's not just %1, it's much more than that, just take a look at this polls September 11 attacks opinion polls. lapsking (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually with this article and the conspiracy theory article each constitute 50%, which is more than it deserves.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

According to wikipedia principles, fringe theories themselves shouldn't be included in the article, however, IMO some way of linking to them would be appropriate - they are related to the article subject. Neutrality/NPOV is specifically *not* including every fringe theory, it *is* specifically excluding them. (Hohum ^@) 22:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not fringe theories, they are conspiracy theories. Could you show me a Wikipedia principle that says the articles should not contain conspiracy theories? AND even when I just tried to add September 11 attacks opinion polls to "See Also" section, "stubborn" guys took it off. lapsking (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The 2008 poll shows that only %46 of the people of the world believe it was done by Al-Qaeda (less than %50). %15 believe it was don by US government, %7 believe it was done by Israel, %7 mentioned other theories and %25 didn't know. see: September 11 attacks opinion polls. --lapsking (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

They are considered fringe when wikipedia consensus judges them so. The opposition to them speaks for itself. There should be a link (perhaps via the category as described above), but not an undue number of links, imo. Appeals to (false) authority, like opinion polls, doesn't really cut it. (Hohum ^@) 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not consensus. The title says it all 9/11 conspiracy theories. see? C.O.N.S.P.I.R.A.C.Y, still I would like to read the principle you mentioned. --lapsking (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say *I* was consensus. Consensus and wikipedia principles is how anything and everything is included in wikipedia. WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:UNDUE would be relevant. (Hohum ^@) 22:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

You're unlikely to make any headway here lapsking. The issues you're raising are exactly why I nominated this article at WP:GAR, and why it's no longer a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any priciple saying the fringe theories shouldn't be in main article here Wikipedia:Fringe theories. That's what Jimbo Wales said: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.". Thanks Malleus, for nominating this unneutral article at WP:GAR, it's far faraway from being a GA, if they are "stubborn" that doesn't mean we should give up. --lapsking (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

They are. I have. You will. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific topics" is an example, WP:FRINGE is clearly not limited to scientific topics. Fringe 9/11 theories are not excluded from wikipedia, there are entire articles about them, as there are on other entirely discredited ideas, like creationism, holocaust denial, etc. However, we are talking about this article, which is about what happened according to WP:RELIABLE sources. Although, my comment was about whether there should be a general link to conspiracy theory articles, as opposed to many links. It was not about the general state of the article. (Hohum ^@) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I will add just one thing to what you've said before I leave you to do what you will this pitiful article, which is that it isn't just an account of the events of the day. It's also an account of the reactions to the day, and to exclude the substantial body of opinion worldwide that has expressed clear doubts about the official version, whether or not you believe those doubts to be rooted in fact, is simply incompatible with a neutral account. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I simply jumpin ever 6 months or so to see if the editors have advanced there understanding of what an encyclopedia is and thus its overall function. Moxy (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The last RfC found consensus to include one link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's also a link in the template. The way to change the article is to build on the talk page a consensus for what you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can read above, MANY editors here think the article is not neutral. Do not take the template 'till the action that's needed is done. lapsking (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The POV template isn't appropriate. Use the talk page to build consensus for your changes. Also, it's better to get consensus before changing the FAQ. I've restored Cs32en's version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can read above (or maybe you can't) the consensus say the article should change. I think it's you who has to bring his "stubborn" friends to oppose "the consensus". lapsking (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I really would urge you to leave this now lapsking, and perhaps reflect on Moxy's comment above. The article is what is and won't be improved until an entrenched group of editors either come to their senses or leave; you're not about to change anyone's mind here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Their Ego make me sick, I've been working on Wikipedia for years, but now I've lost my love for it. lapsking (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Many parts of Wikipedia are wilderness no-go areas like this one. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Insulting editors is not a good way to convince them that you are correct. Malleus will never learn this, but I have hope tht Lapskingwiki will. --Tarage (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest, however, that this would be an opportunity to restore less contentious and embarrassing wording to FAQ A1. The previous answer distinguishes carefully between the media reporting on and supporting (lending credence to or advocating) conspiracy theories, but fails to make the same distinction with regard to the content of the article. It also fails to distinguish between consensus (views of editors, as expressed by themselves, which anyone can read) and a statement by a closing admin. Finally it unnecessarily contrains meaningful discussion on how the topic of conspiracy theories might be handled differently (and perhaps more effectively) than simply having a "see also" link. Geometry guy 00:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy: There have been a lot of changes to the FAQ, and it's difficult for me to keep up. Can you please point to a version of FAQ1 that you think is better than the current version?[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the due weight we are to give the CT's? If zero engineers, scientists and investigators give any, what weight should we. Are you suggesting that since some people "believe" in the 911 Ct's (much like some that think storks deliver babies, or that Bigfoot is an interdimensional space beast, or that most of the world's most powerful people are Reptilians) we should discuss it as a cultural thing?--MONGO 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If you open your eyes and mind at the same time you'll see that there are some investigators who believe in conspiracy theories. lapsking (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You are correct Lapskingwiki - groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice all have members who are considered experts in there fields including engineers, scientists and investigators (they may not be the brightest but they are experts). Like many others that have raised this concern - I believe the intent is not to push a POV or include information that is not widely available to the public, but to have complete article that covers all aspects of 911 in an informative manner. I realy don't see how zero percent coverage of info that is so widely published in books, films, TV etc.. is a neutral position. No matter how wrong the CT's are we have to admit they have had a cultural impact on societies all over the world.Moxy (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is very interesting article but unfortunatley a close mind will deny it's existence and keeps saying Zero, zero, zero. OPEN YOUR MIND, even NYtimes is laughing at Wikipedia and neutrality of this article. --lapsking (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

AE911Truth has no credibility in the architectural and engineering professions. All professions have people out on the fringes, architects and engineers are no different from the legal and medical professions in that respect, so the existence of such a group of people with standard professional qualifications doesn't prove a great deal. Acroterion (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

See Moxy? They only can see what they like to see. Those who are on their side are professionals and reliable, others are dumbs or do not exist at all. Their brains have been fossilized. --lapsking (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who point out that a particular group is is fringe pressure group that has published nothing but innuendo and speculation are pointing out that we are all expected to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing and undue weight; disparagement of the messenger is not going to change that. Acroterion (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be the main problem here - that is that anyone even third party neutral authors writing about CT's are dismissed here because of the topic of there writings not because of who they are or the coverage that they have received in the real world be it right or wrong. We should be talking about the cultural effects that CTs have had like with the platforms of political parties ie.Canadian Action Party. To simply dismiss all mention of CT's and thus there cultural impact is a glaring omission in this so called overview article. Moxy (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

You can count only three editors who want "more inclusion"? What about all of those others who commented at the recent GAR? Malleus Fatuorum 10:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

lapsking, Moxy, 7mike5000, Cla68, Malleus, A Quest For Knowledge, Geometry guy... these are users who discussed only on this section for a change, but I'm sure there are a lot of more useres out there since this unneutrality has been reported even on NYtimes. And ofcourse we are minorities, that's why we only want a little section in the article, if we were consensus we would edit the whole article. So stop exagerating, or it's you who have to leave. lapsking (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if we are %10 percent who believe in inclusion of conspiracy theories (which we are more than that), then %10 of the article should refelect our ideas. That's neutrality. What you want is total dictatorship. --lapsking (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You could have 10 thousand "editors" here squealing about the lack of conspiracy and fringe theory discussion in this article and that wouldn't matter. The article is based on the facts of the case, established by engineers, scientists and investigators that back their findings up using the scientific method, not fantasies, myths or outright lies. NPOV, UNDUE, ONEWAY and other policies demand what the reliable references tell us, not what opinion polls, non peer reviewed websites and other areas of misinformation are belching. It is never surprising to see CT advocates here whining about the lack of CT dribble in the article...there goal has always been to ignore our policies, gain a foothold and then ask for more and more coverage of their unsubstantiated nonsense.MONGO 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[after ec] In my view it's impossible to ignore that conspiracy theories exist. Have a look at this very easy keyword search on Google books: [8]. In my view the thing to do would be to read some of these sources and in the article, using attribution, explain the existence of the theories very briefly and in summary style, and then lean on one of these sources to explain why they don't hold up. That would really balance the page better. It's one thing to say CT advocates whine, it's another to see what sources say. And btw - no I don't believe in the theories but I know they exist. The bottom line is that my opinion, or yours, or anyone else's is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the sources tell us. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course conspiarcy theories exist. Thats why wikipedia has an article about them. Its called 9/11 conspiracy theories. That article is for mass of alternate theories, and this article, September 11 attacks, is for what really happened.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The point you keep missing is that a part of what happened was that all these consipiracy theories grew up. That you or I or anyone else gives them little credence is immaterial, they're part of the story. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is the point.. they exist, thus are part of the overall story. "What really happened" is that this CT morons did have an impact on society regardless if we like it or not. This is an overview article a parent article if you will, its not called the Official account of the September 11 attacks. At no point has anyone suggested we amend the tone of the article or insert an alternative view throughout the article. What has been suggested is that CT's are mentioned in there context. That is the political and social affects of CT's not stating they are valid or even going into details about them. There seems to be a disconnect in understanding the different between mentioning them in there context over pushing there POVs into the article. As a reader on a topic of this nature would you not except overall coverage presented in neutral manner over simple omission. Moxy (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"At no point has anyone suggested we amend the tone of the article or insert an alternative view throughout the article." I'm not sure that's the case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to this time around... However the statement below leads me to believe we are not all on the same page here.. I spoke to soon I guess..My mistake.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that everyone thinks what he believes is what has happened, that's why we should refelect all theories with reliable sources and let the reader himself judge. you can't judge for the reader. --lapsking (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey if some people don't want to believe their own eyes, that's their bag man, not mine. Occam's razor. Wikipedia already gave the conspiracy theories its own article. Does each individual theory need its own article too? Should what really happened be tainted by what some "think" happened? This article is about the facts only. So, I will leave with a quote from Jack Nicholson in As Good as It Gets, "Go sell crazy some place else, we're all booked up here".--JOJ ^Hutton 01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If those wishing to add more conspiracy theory coverage to the article would like to provide proper source material, then they should do so here. Otherwise this entire discussion is pointless wanking. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)