Talk:September 11 attacks

Conspiracy theories

An anonymous IP attempting to game the system. This debate is over until the user decides to stop playing these games.

The associated conspiracy theories are not mentioned at all on this article, other than a brief one sentence acknowledgement of their existence under ‘Aftermath - Cultural’. This is despite the extensive 9/11 conspiracy theories article and even an article describing how many people believe these (Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories)). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally. Part 1: Should a new section be placed in the article that explains the presence of these conspiracy theories, describes some of the more common ones and assesses their popularities and reputations? Part 2: Should a short sentence be placed in the lead to say that conspiracy theories exist? As an example, the article Assassination of John F. Kennedy includes both a section corresponding to Part 1 and a sentence in the lead corresponding to Part 2. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Repeated attempts to post puerile nonsense about death rays from space and the like have been appropriately deleted from this talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Response to part 1 Response to part 2 Threaded discussion No, the single sentence in the article as of this revision is plenty. See also the FAQ and the (extensive) talk page archives. VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Talk page archives show constant objections from users.. quite a few users desire more mention of these alternatives opinions. For example, placing it under 'cultural' section was objected, then not mentioning the deception from certain government organizations which caused Congress to consider filing criminal charges, etc.. and this being one of the reasons for alternative views to be strengthened, etc... many many objections... 71.194.230.179 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC) This article deals with facts not fantasies. We have the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles which deal with the fantasies.--MONGO 16:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC) @71.194.230.179: Yes, but by people who don't understand our policy on WP:NPOV. To give undue weight to wild, conspiracy theories is a violation of NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) isn't this a fact? Oh, Washington Post, you are right, it must be a fantasy. :P 71.194.230.179 (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Violation of NPOV is ignoring the views of nearly half of population, and all the facts that don't go along the mainstream view presented in the article. 71.194.230.179 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Speaking of policies, why is Wikipedia:SUBPOV being violated here? 71.194.230.179 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC) We provide coverage based on reliable sources and subject to our policy on fringe theories, not poll results. Why do you think SUBPOV is being violated? VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Why do you think what was quoted above is unreliable or fringe? Your comment makes no sense. 64.134.169.187 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC) VQuak's comment is quite clear. Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources, not polls or conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC) There are many confirmed sources on disagreeing facts (i.e. those linked above) as well as conspiracy theories. In regards to polls, I thought that that was one way of figuring out what mainstream is: Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. Nobody here talks about inclusion of information from unconfirmed 'conspiracy theories', but only of inclusion of verified and well written about topics. Why is it that some users fail to observe this distinction? 216.80.122.223 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Debate has moved below to RfC, please do not re-open this section.

I peeked in the above conversation, and have to say that I do agree that the conspiracy theories are not given the weight they are due in this very lengthy article. It is deserving of its own subsection, and I say this after reading the wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Even the weather has its own subsection! In fact, the source given for the current single sentence about the conspiracy theories, is itself a lengthy diatribe devoted to the subject at hand. And while I was inspecting the source, I found that it does not say anything at all about the level of support from the historian or scientist community. So while the reference does help to establish the notability of the subject, it does not actually support the sentence in the wikipedia article. Smitty121981 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC) That's because there is no level of support from sane historians or sane scientists. Of course there are the Wackos and Charlatans for dah "truth"...um.--MONGO 11:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) um... your biased position has been made clear: any scientist who agrees with your personal beliefs is "sane" and any scientist that disagrees is a "Wacko" without regard for their actual status, such as having a prominent position in a major university. When we actually take an objective look at the existing literature, we find that there are several peer-reviewed articles/letters published in scientific/engineering journals that lend credence to various aspects (but certainly not all) of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. But I am not here to argue the strength/weaknesses of these theories. I am here to state emphatically that given this level of professional involvement, one sentence is simply not enough coverage in an article of this length. Allow me to quote from the first source: "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections." Smitty121981 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC) We already have an article that talks about the insane ramblings of terminated professors....its. called 9/11 conspiracy theories and that's not the only article we have to examine their opinions. We link to that article from this one....that's food enough. You conspiracy theory POV pushers are never happy...you always want more of your nonsense in the article.--MONGO 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Excuse me, but I am not here to "push a POV" -- unlike yourself, I have avoided stating my personal opinion as to the validity of the conspiracy theories, and have relied upon reliable sources instead to make my point that they deserve more than a single sentence mention. I noticed that you completely ignored the quote I posted about hundreds of professionals, officials, and academics questioning the official story of 9/11. Here's four more peer-reviewed publications that research aspects of the "conspiracy theory". Smitty121981 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC) The Bentham nano-thermite letter (it was not an article) has been rejected many times, and Bentham is looked upon with great skepticism in Wikipedia at large. The nano-thermite argument remains a fringe topic taken seriously only within the Truther echo chamber and has no place in this article. The Manwell paper, according to its abstract, as about discourse in public policy relating to state crimes, and as far as I can tell doesn't revolve around 9/11 conspiracy theories. While fringe elements in academia and some professions have endorsed conspiracy theories, they do not represent a significant view and are not taken seriously by mainstream media, their parent institutions or their professional organizations. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Totally agree with Acroterion's comments above and also MONGO's contribution. This article deals with facts and not conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC) About the Harrit et al paper - when you stated it "has been rejected many times", why did you not provide any sources to verify the validity of these rejections and why do you think a rejection of a single paper makes the topic of 9/11 conspiracy irrelevant? "Bentham is looked upon with great skepticism in Wikipedia at large." And if Bentham was the only publisher represented in the nine excellent sources I provided, you might have a point. However, only two of the sources were published by Bentham. Look closer at the Manwell paper, it portrays 9/11 as a possible state crime against democracy right there in the abstract, and the full text can be found through google Scholar. What about the incredibly relevant quote I posted from it that so far all three of you have ignored? In conclusion, I have gathered several disparate sources that together make a strong case that there is substantial professional debate on the subject, therefore making the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories deserving of it's own sub-section in this article. I gladly welcome sources to the contrary, but thus far all criticisms of my stance have ranged from the unsourced to outright ad hominem attacks. Smitty121981 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "Sources to verify the validity of its rejection" amounts to asking for proof of a negative: the talkpage archives discuss the issue at great length, with the conclusion that is is an interesting mention of a fringe theory that has been inflated by conspiracy enthusiasts into a "peer reviewed paper", which it is not. The abstract I saw of Manwell didn't even mention 9/11, and it doesn't appear from what I saw that acceptance of a conspiracy theory is central to that publications content. Bazant et al are no friends of the conspiracy theorists, the Szuladziński et al paper is simply a critique of Bazant and not an endorsement of conspiracy theories, the Poteshman insider trading is discussed and at September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories and rejected by the 9/11 Commission as explained. The sources you've produced either reject conspiracy theories or give them scant mention, apart from the Bentham letter, whose "nano-thermite" has itself been disputed as indistinguishable from normal oxide primer. The common thread in all of the conspiracy theories (and this is a classic feature of any such theory, not just 9/11) is cherry-picking inconsistencies and granting them undue prominence, or of extensive confirmation bias. There is no coherent narrative to any of this, and no support in credible academic or journalism sources. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you Acroterion for acknowledging and addressing the sources that I took the time to compile! I'd like to briefly respond to your points. Harrit et al - I see that you are referencing the consensus on the wiki about the paper, so I accept that it is currently not considered a reliable source for this article. Manwell - Here is the link to the journal listing. Specifically, the abstract states "Terror management theory and system justification theory are used to explain how preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq." Later on in the article, they state "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections." Bazant - I absolutely agree with you that "Bazant et al are no friends of the conspiracy theorists", and that's why I think it is significant that three separate authors have published discussions critical of his work in the same journal (JEM) in which he published his famous paper on the collapse of the Twin Towers (Gourley(not listed above),Grabbe,Bjorkman). And it is significant that a full paper was published in a separate journal that, as you said, was also critical of Bazant's work (Szuladziński). I listed the Poteshman paper because insider trading is part of the conspiracy theory and more recent research has come to similar conclusions. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC) So, in effect, it's some vague allusions you've pulled from an abstract and papers that ignore or dismiss the conspiracy theories (criticism of Bazant is not acceptance of CT), as support for inclusion of a CT discussion in the article, despite minimal sourcing and nonexistent support from scholarly and journalism sources? Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Support adding 2-3 paragraph section on the conspiracy theories and it looks like we have sufficient support for the addition. I would suggest posting your proposed text here, and we can tweak before adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you Cla68, I will write something up and post it on the talk page for feedback.Smitty121981 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) If by "sufficient support" you mean high-quality references, there's a long way to go. Specifically, the often-asserted claim that AE 9/11 is something other than a fringe group is countered by this in [2]. The Guardian, hardly a friend of the US government, has this [3], which also mentions the refutation of the insider trading rumor. Where the mainstream media (which we depend on to establish weight) notices 9/11 conspiracies at all, that example and this companion to the Guardian piece [4], which uses the word "preposterous", are typical examples. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC) @Cla68: This is the wrong place to hold this discussion. Even if there was WP:Local consensus for this suggestion, it would be completely meaningless until WP:NPOV were changed. I suggest that you open an WP:RfC and lobby to have NPOV changed. After you've convinced the community to change this policy, then come back and talk to us. Until then, this suggestion is completely meaningless. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC) AQFK, I note that your objection is based on your interpretation of WP policy. You appear to be trying to use "argument from authority". I and a few others don't agree with you. Again, I welcome Smitty's proposed addition and we can comment on it. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC) No, WP:NPOV is very clear: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. " We don't get to override policy just because we feel like it. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules and are unwilling to change them, then please feel free to fork the project. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Strongly Oppose There is no consensus for adding conspiracy theories to this article. There is already a article for these ramblings and that is where such "theories" should stay. David J Johnson (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC) @Smitty121981: Allow me to fully quote from your first source: In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections.4 Most recently, Brigham Young University physics Professor Steven Jones, who was forced into early retirement for his work analyzing World Trade Center (WTC) dust for evidence of thermite residue, an explosive used in controlled demolition, published several articles with his colleagues—in the Open Civil Engineering Journal, the Environmentalist, and the Open Chemical Physics Journal—countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses and findings of chemical energetic materials in the recovered debris (Harrit et al., 2009; Jones, Legge, Ryan, Szamboti, & Gourley, 2008b; Ryan, Gourley, & Jones, 2008.) — pg. 857, Manwell, L. A. (2010). "In denial of Democracy: Social psychological implications for public discourse on state crimes against democracy post-9/11" (PDF). American behavioral scientist. 53 (6): 848–884. doi:10.1177/0002764209353279. And Manwell's sources are... (drum roll)... the website http://patriotsquestion911.com/, David Ray Griffin's 2004 book The New Pearl Harbor (note 4, pg. 874, ), and, of course, the usual suspects of Jones, Ryan, Harrit, Gourley, Szamboti, etc (rimshot). The "discussion" comments by the non-qualified, non-specialists, Björkman, Gourley, Grabbe, and Szuladziński (yes, it's actually four) are best summed up with some quotes from the closures to those discussions: Closure to Björkman : The discusser's interest is appreciated. However, he presents no meaningful mechanics argument against the gravity driven progressive collapse model of our paper. His claim that "the authors' theory is wrong" is groundless. The discusser claims that no differential equations are required to model the collapse. This is incorrect. The discusser claims that the progressive collapse model we developed in the paper does not consider the energy required to compress the rubble. This claim is absurd. The discusser further claims that, for the continuation of the crush-down phase, the columns in the part C (upper part) must be assumed to be in contact with the columns of part A (lower part). This claim is erroneous. Based on the profile of the rubble pile shown in Fig. 3(b) of the paper, the discusser estimates the rubble density to have an unrealistic value (3.075 t/m3). Since this figure is only schematic, his point is meaningless. Closure to Gourley : The interdisciplinary interests of Gourley, a chemical engineer with a doctorate in jurisprudence, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser's criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering. It also provides an opportunity to rebut a previous similar discussion widely circulated on the Internet, co-authored by S. E. Jones, Associate Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University and a cold fusion specialist. Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information. Closure to Grabbe : The discusser's interest is appreciated. However, his objections against the analysis of gravity-driven progressive collapse of the Word Trade Center (WTC) towers by have no scientific merit, [...] It is surprising to see that references to online postings and an online journal not subjected to mechanics reviewing are cited as evidence. A further problem of discussion is that it is written without the use of the standard simplifying hypotheses of structural mechanics, which make the structural analysis feasible, are justified by vast experience, and represent the essential content of structural mechanics courses and textbooks. The discusser's objections to the gravity-driven collapse analysis presented in the original paper are invalid. His conclusion that "The analysis by Le and Bazant is incorrect" is groundless. Closure to Szuladzinski : The interest of Szuladzinski, a specialist in homeland security, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, [...] Although closing comments similar to those in the preceding discussion could be repeated, let it suffice to say that the discusser's conclusion that "the motion will be arrested during the damaged story collapse and the building will stand" is incorrect. Thus, the recent allegations of controlled demolition are baseless. The claims made above that the sources provided represent the gathering of "several disparate sources that together make a strong case that there is substantial professional debate on the subject, therefore making the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories deserving of it's own sub-section in this article" is not supported. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time for the lengthy and constructive response. I am aware of the published rebuttals to the discussions, but this just further establishes that there is currently a professional debate(i.e. published in prominent engineering journal). Also, Manwell's interpretation of those sources passed peer-review. Please read my suggested change below, I think I worded it in a way that makes it clear why these references are applicable.Smitty121981 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC) So here's my proposed change, which I feel is consistent with the rest of the article. This would be a sub-section in the "Effects" chapter, just like the Weather sub-section. I tried to take into account the concerns brought up in this conversation: I kept it much shorter than the suggested 2-3 paragraphs to avoid giving undue weight, I did not use any sources published by Bentham, I avoided any mention of thermite, I did make sure to include the two Guardian articles provided as well as several new sources from major news networks, and of course (despite preemptive claims to the contrary) I made every effort to maintain WP:NPOV. Conspiracy Theories Further information: 9/11 conspiracy theories Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon. Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials, and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Your sources don't support the proposed text. "Despite their persistence..."? What? The only reason 9/11 conspiracy theories have not been accepted by the academic and scientific communities is because they are bullshit... you know... conspiracy theories. Thank you for wasting my time. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, "persistent" did come from the sources: "Among the most persistent post-9/11 rumors was..." and "So what is the attraction of conspiracy theories? And why are they so persistent?". However, I am certainly open to civil suggestions for improvement (no one asked you to spend any time here). Smitty121981 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC) The persistence of conspiracy theories is not related to their lack of acceptance by the academic and scientific communities. Conspiracy theories are rejected because they are incorrect, unsupported, and non-factual. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I will change the wording to be less open for interpretation.Smitty121981 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Strongly oppose including this nonsense. There's already a page for this junk, and it's not this one. This article is about facts, not fringe nonsense. Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Strongly oppose above wording, as it does not make clear that these conspiracy theories are bollocks. More generally, I find it unlikely that I would be convinced that any expansion of coverage of CTs in this article was editorially favorable. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Strongly opposeAs I have previously stated above, there is already a page for these fringe theories, which have no place and need no reference in a factual article. David J Johnson (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC) So far, the criticisms seem to be confusing notability for credibility. I am certainly aware that the article is about facts - that's what the 14 reliable sources are for. Furthermore, my suggestion is not unwarranted: At the top of this talk page, it states "There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article" and the suggestion there is to expand the coverage of Conspiracy Theories: "I'd at least suggest that a paragraph or two be added to cover these; given the prevalence of these theories, it seems a shame to not really address them." Smitty121981 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, as a group 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. That is why we have an article about them. That does not mean that they are going to be covered in increased depth in this article. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Comment. It's a good start on a paragraph, but the text shouldn't be in WP's voice. Instead of, "These theories are fueled, in part, by evidence of insider trading before the attack", it should say something like, "Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack," and so on. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks so much for the helpful critique, the change has been made above. Do you have any suggestion on how to better word the "Despite their persistence" bit? I went through a lot of versions already as I was writing this and unfortunately that's the best I could come up with.Smitty121981 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC) As ever, expanding on the conspiracy theories in this article would give undue weight to a fringe view. Tom Harrison Talk 22:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC) It sounds like a lot of people's minds are made up before even looking at what I wrote? Please take the time to absorb the references, I think I established the notability. If not, could you please give constructive criticism on how to better establish it?Smitty121981 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC) You want to see an expansion on the discussions of falsehoods in an article which discusses the known facts. You've already been shown that we already have entire articles dedicated to discussing those falsehoods...there isn't any reason to give undue weight to those falsehoods here.--MONGO 11:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Can you point out any "falsehoods" in the text I wrote for inclusion? If so, I will gladly revise it. Apparently, adding this one little section is all that stands in the way of Good Article status. Given this, I honestly cannot comprehend why most of the editors here are so vehemently opposed to the idea that they are willing to reject it without even taking the time to consider what I wrote. I know that 9/11 is emotional; wikipedia should not be. Smitty121981 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Good or Featured article "status" are subjective issues and neither mean a thing in the scheme of things. If the only thing standing between this article and getting that "status" is inclusion of preposterous fantasies concocted by those morons who refer to themselves as Architects and Engineers for truth then that "status" is not welcomed. We have taken (more then you deserve) the time to examine and address your points, but you fail to see that there isn't any support for your changes. In fact, it's pretty obvious that you have zero interest in article improvement....all you want is your conspiracy theory bullshit in the article.--MONGO 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Well I'll be honest, I don't understand what all the "status" things mean. All I know is that what I am proposing is not 'bullshit', but is actually a suggestion for improvement on the top of this talk page, and I have been trying very hard to be civil about my approach (sorry if it wasn't). I did what I thought I should do, which is start a conversation here rather than modifying the article directly. A review of the discussion will show that I have listened to several editors who have made constructive criticisms, so clearly I am interested in article improvement. If a reasonable amount of time goes by and I do not receive enough support to make the change in the article, I will drop the subject - until then I have the right to civilly take part in the discussion. Some comments from editors here are sounding a lot like taking ownership. Smitty121981 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose Cla68's comment concerning the use of Wikipedia's voice is correct. Apart from that, the paragraph gives undue weight to an inconsistent set of rumors and armchair theorizing described in mainstream sources as "preposterous." Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, doesn't give much weight to the preposterous, and really shouldn't give any. "Hundreds of professionals and officials" gives false standing to academics and professionals who have strayed outside their specific expertise to espouse easily disprovable fallacies. All professional fields have fringe enthusiasts. The trading rumors have long been disproved as unrelated and should not be discussed as if they are credible. It's long been my view that Wikipedia is too easygoing about granting even superficial credibility to conspiracy theories in general and the inclusion of fringe viewpoints in the name of a false balance, while the mutable nature of Wikipedia encourages people to try to make these theories become a ratified fact via a credulous account in Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback. I like Cla68's new phrasing below, which revised the whole "hundreds..." bit, is that any better? Also, is there a reliable source about the trading rumors being disproved? I ask because two separate authors in two separate journals came to similar conclusions, and I know you already brought up the 9/11 Commission Report(2004) but it was published before either of those papers (2006,2010). The Guardian vaguely mentioned something about it, but not enough to follow up on, and Google didn't turn up anything for me either. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC) I found a third reliable source for the insider trading, in which the authors describe several "transactions on the CBOE which can be associated with informed trading activities" with 13 of them being "related to the terrorist attacks of September 11th" Smitty121981 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC) You found an academic source that speculates using statistics: it postulates insider trading, against actual investigation of the trades that concluded that the acknowledged unusual trading was entirely unrelated. It's a good example of never letting the facts get in the way of one's thesis. From the 9/11 report: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades...", which the paper nevertheless attributes to foreknowledge. More to the point, it is a narrow discussion of the trading patterns, not of the conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC) So there is one reliable source from 2004 that came to the conclusion that insider trading did not occur (9/11 Commission report). Then there are three later reliable sources (Poteshman 2006, Wong 2010, Chesney 2010), written by different authors and published in different journals, that all came to the conclusion that insider trading did occur. This shows, if nothing else, that there is legitimate controversy and it is not a settled matter. The 9/11 Commission Report, no matter how reliable, simply cannot 'erase' legitimate research that is completed years later. Plenty of sources include insider trading as part of the conspiracy theories, including The Guardian article which you provided. Maybe there is a different way to word the sentence so that it fits more with your line of thinking? Smitty121981 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, it can. The trades and traders were investigated and no link to the 9/11 conspiracy was found. Whether one can speculate using statistics is interesting, but statistical analysis and drawing speculative conclusions don't trump an actual investigation. The investigation flatly said there was no link between the trades and the event: the papers say that the trades look like they were linked, and ignore the fact that that was disproved by a criminal investigation. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC) @Acroterion: I'm sorry but that is cherrypicking. To further address your point, the third source (Chesney) is a thorough research paper written by members of the the Swiss Banking Institute, the Swiss Finance Institute, and the University of Zurich - and these experts "perform an analysis at the level of single option contracts." In contrast to regression models they "use a different approach and empirically show the information content in specific trades." They did not just analyze trading related to 9/11 but across a time period of several years and state, "[Our] approach enables us to detect informed trades which would not have been detected when analyzing a period around a specific type of event." Finally, they link several specific instances of informed trading to 9/11:"In total we detect 37 transactions on the CBOE which can be associated with informed trading activities: ...13 related to the terrorist attacks of September 11th" and "For the banking sector we detected 14 informed trading activities,... 5 [related] to the terrorist attacks of September 11th" There is simply no way that all of this research is somehow invalidated by a footnote in a report compiled several years earlier. Smitty121981 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Cherry-picking?" Do you seriously believe that a statistical analysis negates the results of a criminal investigation that specifically reviewed the market activities? This material may be useful at the conspiracy theories page, if written appropriately, but as I and others have clearly stated, the entire exercise is undue weight and credibility given to conspiracy theories. I have no interest in discussing this further with you: you appear to have moved into direct promotion of fringe theories and are bordering on tendentious editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Comment Here is how I would word it: Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon and have been embraced by a number of commentators, public officials, and celebrities. Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack and have criticized the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of a fire-induced progressive collapse. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) The policy problems with this are manifold, but WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE are a good start. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Support. I like the new wording! Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose really the variety, type, and incredulity of the multitude of distinct CTs don't justify "widespread" description. Lumping all the the crackpots into a single box that they themselves oppose in order to gain a semblance of notability is improper use of how fringe views should be handled. Wikipedia cannot be the place where these dots are connected into monolithic view when they are really tiny fringe groups that all blame different groups. Combining Israel with Space Lasers to Thermite to WTC7 CTs and lumping them together to firm up the notion of "widespread" is misleading. We really have a number of CT's each with a tiny fringe that are unrelated to the other tiny fringe groups. Whence, none are widespread. --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Lumping all the the crackpots into a single box" was done for us, by the sources. It is our job as editors to report what the sources say, no to re-interpret them. Even the title of source 2 is "September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound". 'Abound' meaning "exist in large numbers or amounts." Are there any reliable sources that suggest the 9/11 conspiracy theories are anything but wide-spread? Smitty121981 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC) The plural of "theories" is what abounds, not adherents that are credible sources for each of those theories. The people that believe are Barbara Olson was abducted by aliens is incredibly small and irrelevant. The internet is abound with hundreds of whacky theories but none have depth.. --DHeyward (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Here's a reliable source which states: "there is ample evidence that some conspiracy theories are not at all confined to small segments of the population. Overseas, 'a 2002 Gallup Poll conducted in nine Islamic countries found that 61 percent of those surveyed thought that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.' ... The widespread belief that U.S. officials knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen or even brought it about may have hampered the government’s efforts to mobilize social resources and political support for measures against future terrorist attacks." Smitty121981 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose Nobody takes these fringe theories seriously within the context of 9/11 and neither should this article (see WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY). Wikipedia strives to be a respected encyclopedia, and devoting an entire section in this article to conspiracy theories just makes us look silly. That is not to say that conspiracy theories aren't a topic worthy of serious study, but this is not the right article or even the right field of study. 9/11 is ultimately a subtopic of history which is a field studied by historians. 9/11 conspiracy theories is ultimately a subtopic of psychology which is a field studied by psychologists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC) @A Quest For Knowledge: Thanks for the feedback. The argument posed about being in the proper field of study is interesting. Certainly, psychology is a field that studies conspiracy theories. So is sociology. But some would say, so is history. In "Enemies Within The Culture of Conspiracy" published by Yale University Press, history professor Robert A Goldberg makes the case that "conspiracism [is] essential to an understanding of history and society" and in a lecture by the same name published by the Florida Atlantic University's Dept. of History (PDF), he states: I would like to talk about conspiracy thinking in recent American history; to talk about the who, how, and why of conspiracism. Particularly, I would like to spotlight the conspiracy theories that have emerged in the wake of the tragedy of 9-11. Befitting this lecture series, it speaks to a topic vital to an understanding of our society and to the health of our American Republic ... We live at a time in American history when conspiracy thinking permeates and colors our culture, beliefs, and speech; our very interpretation of history and current events. Understandably, many would point to the tragic events of 9-11 in explanation ... Yet, conspiracy thinking is not a recent phenomenon in American history. Nor will it dissolve as the pain and memory of 9-11 ebbs. Rather, it has deep roots in American life. It was and is a persistent and American tradition. " Clearly Goldberg, and Cass Sunstein who I quoted above, place a great deal of weight on the conspiracy theories even though both have rejected the theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC) I think that you've missed my point about context. The reference in which you cite is not about history in general, it's about the history of conspiracy theories. What I said was that 9/11 conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever, mentioned within the context of the 9/11 terrorist attacks themselves. Instead, you provided a reference about 9/11 conspiracy theories within the context of the history of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC) I assume you are talking about sources like this? It's an interesting point, but how do you defend it given that sources like these also don't mention anything about any of the other sub-categories in the "Effects" chapter? "Health Issues"? Not there. "Weather"? Certainly not! "Economic"? "Cultural"? "Government Policy"? No, yet all of these sections are well-referenced. Clearly, the article already has scope well beyond the context of those particular type of sources to which you referred; and I have established that conspiracy theories have as much, or more, weight than these other current sub-categories. Imagine a source saying that a 3-day increase in the temperature range is "essential to an understanding of history and society"! Smitty121981 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Strong Oppose Why are we doing this song and dance again? I'm going to wait a week and if consensus doesn't drastically change over the course of that week I'm just going to archive this, because there is absolutely nothing new here. --Tarage (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC) @Tarage:, have you seen the [|C-SPAN clip] I referenced above? That's very new (less than a month old). Also, the [|Szuladziński paper] is fairly new (2013). A week sounds very reasonable to me, hopefully there is a middle ground that editors can find in that time. Smitty121981 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC) You'll have to do quite a bit of leg work to get consensus to change. I do not envy the work ahead of you. MONGO probably won't ever agree, but you might be able to sway some of the other editors if you remain civil. My problem with all of this is that the song and dance has not changed. The talk page archives are littered with POV arguments such as this one. Please take time and listen to what the editors have said and try your best to address them. Good luck. --Tarage (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks Tarage for the friendly advice. Maybe if there wasn't a suggestion from experienced editors at the top of the talk page to expand the Conspiracy Theories section as a way to improve the article, less people would come to the talk page to suggest this very thing? Or maybe, just maybe, we can find a way to actually work together, and come up with something that (serious) editors can agree upon? Smitty121981 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Comment To all the editors who keep linking to WP:FRINGE, here is what it says: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." By this point, I have cited literally dozens of reliable sources that do just this. Some editors challenged some of the sources (thank you) - these were either removed, or defended by finding other sources that agree. Remember, "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." and most of my sources have been the ideal "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". And here is what the WP:NPOV page says (emphasis mine): " Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." I welcome serious and polite comments, preferably with specifics. Thank you. Smitty121981 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The main problem with the proposals above is that they violate our guidelines on fringe theories, and our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability by presenting 9/11 conspiracy theories as if they are part of some on going debate among qualified professionals or scholars in the appropriate fields (e.g., labeling the known facts as the "prevailing theory", or by citing submitted journal comments by well known, non-qualified, non-specialist, conspiracy theorists as if they carried any weight, etc.). The "theories" advanced by the "truth movement" have been debunked, dismissed, discarded, or ignored by effectively all of the published, mainstream, authoritative, and reliable sources on the topic. The coverage of these conspiracy theories in reliable sources does mean that they satisfy WP:NOTABLE, and are thus acceptable for possible inclusion in Wikipedia. However, satisfying the requirements for possible inclusion does not make any of the claims made by adherents notable for anything other than being conspiracy theories. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for acknowledging that I have established some notability! Hopefully now we can work on finding a wording that can be agreed upon. In response to your criticisms, it seems like you might not have seen the new C-SPAN source? They clearly do not "debunk, dismiss, discard, or ignore" the conspiracy theories, rather they give a prominent adherent an entire 45 minute segment of Washington Journal to present his theories. Also, it is a fact that several authors have published critiques in major engineering journals, whether or not you think their critiques are valid. The editors of the journals apparently found them sufficiently qualified for publication. The real question you hit on though is how to describe what are they critiquing? I think "prevailing theory" usually would imply a great deal of certainty... however, I do understand the concern because in the context of this paragraph the word 'theories' is also being used to refer to concepts that are considered nonfactual, and the current wording might seem to equate the two. Suggestions on how to get around this? Perhaps "accepted scientific theory..." would work better? Smitty121981 (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Strongly oppose again!! A final comment before I disappear for a few days! I really fail to see why this is still being discussed. The consensus of opinion is that the comments bySmitty121981 have no place in this article, there already being an article for fringe theories. Why are we still discussing this? David J Johnson (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Smitty, could you please repost your proposed addition? I'd like to comment on the current proposal. And I request that the few other editors here who keep trying to close this discussion down please try to control yourselves. We've got a 'pedia to build here. Cla68 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Never mind. I support Smitty's proposed addition as currently drafted at the top of this section. Smitty, I suggest you open up a formal content RfC with your proposed paragraph for inclusion in this article. You need an RfC in order to get wider participation than the regulars here. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity of bin Laden confession tape for NPOV

This good faith edit I made has been reverted twice with no real justification. The paragraph I added is sourced from 4 WP:RS news articles. Plus in my opinion it fully adheres to Wikipedia's three core content policies in particular WP:NPOV but also WP:VER & WP:NOR. Any chance of some descussion on this before it is reverted again? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the normal process of WP:BRD is that your bold edit was reverted and now you should seek consensus through discussion. You should not keep readding content without any real discussion and the onus is on you. In my opinion, your edit added a trivial bit piece of information that is unnecessary in such a long article. The view that OBL was involved is widely held. That view has been held since the moment of the bombing and also includes suspicions in the prior WTC bombing, USS Cole and embassy bombings in Africa. Cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan in the Clinton years to strike at OBL confirm this belief. The tape authentication process is trivia unless there are reliable sources claiming OBL was never involved. Since this is not the case and there are no reliable sources that claim OBL was not involved, the addition of that type of material in the lead or the article is trivia that implies doubt where none exists. --DHeyward (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, well I think there should be some level of doubt/scepticism about all information and I do feel my addition is fully justified under WP:NPOV. Anyway I won't revert again and will see if there is any interest in obtaining a consensus on whether or not this bit of information should be included. Thanks again for your response Screamliner (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article already uses too many older news sources and the ones you were adding were also ancient.--MONGO 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm against inclusion on the basis that it doesn't really add anything to the article, and the article itself is already quite verbose. --Tarage (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with comments above from MONGO and Tarage. David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New comment

Debate has been closed, please do not re-open this section.

I'm going to ask the regulars here to please stop revert-warring on text additions you don't approve of. Unless it's clear vandalism, discuss it first BEFORE removal. When you revert good faith efforts to improve the article, you are rebuffing new editors and probably making WP's editor flight problem worse. The main objections to the addition, after two rude reverts, appear to be "the sources are old" and "I don't like it that much." Good grief, what a welcoming attitude towards other editors. This is the kind of thing that makes participating in Wikipedia suck. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC) I would oppose that. I know we run the risk of scaring off editors who do not presently understand WP:NPOV (as opposed to some we want to run off, those who want to edit their own POV into the article, regardless of NPOV), but many of us are tired of explaining why the same edit has been rejected by consensus and because of policies and guidelines, time after time after time after time after time [repeat]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC) If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you don't fully agree with WP's editing model. WP, as it currently exists, is founded on content that is constantly in flux as editors come and go and change, improve, or add text to articles. When editors try to control an article through revert-warring and constant threats of sanction, as is occurring on this page, then that is against WP's operating model. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for intimidation-free zone

Debate has been closed, please do not re-open this section.

I would like to propose that this article talk page be declared an "intimidation-free" zone. Accordingly, I propose that we all agree that we will be more welcoming to editors who come here trying to improve this article by: Not revert-warring on this article talk page Not closing or "hatting" a discussion if specific article improvements or modifications are being discussed Not threatening other editors on this talk page with sanctions, topic bans, or blocks Not making any derogatory or personal comments about conspiracy theories or any other aspect of the 9/11 topic area Not leaving snarky, smug, or condescending edit summaries If you agree please sign below. I will, of course, be the first to pledge: Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Smitty121981 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Conspiracy theories and disruptive editors who POV push the will continue to rejected here, as they have the past 9 bazillion times they were brought up. I reserve the right to hat people demanding we cover death lasers from space as well as point out how stupid that theory it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Are conspiracy theories relevant to the effects chapter?

Should the "Effects" chapter contain a sub-section about conspiracy theories? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text for inclusion (please see above for a lengthy discussion on the matter):

• EDIT second sentence was replaced per feedback. Hope this one is better! For reference, the old sentence was: "Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory scientific theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse."

Conspiracy theories

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories.

Smitty121981 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• No - See the previous thread. This has been soundly rejected by editors here and this is just an attempt to continue an already rejected idea. Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support- WP:NPOV requires appropriate weight to all aspects of a topic, and having a short paragraph of three sentences or so in this article on the conspiracy theories will help this article better comply with that policy. The proposed paragraph is well-sourced and neutral. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Please keep these to one section. I don't like having to read over multiple different sections of the talk page to find where the current debate is taking place. As a result, I am closing the older above sections. Please do not create a new section until this matter is resolved. Thank you.--Tarage (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The proposed text violates our guidelines on fringe theories, and our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability by presenting 9/11 conspiracy theories as if they are part of some on going debate among qualified professionals or scholars in the appropriate fields (e.g., labeling the known facts as the "prevailing theory", or by citing submitted journal comments by well known, non-qualified, non-specialist, conspiracy theorists as if they carried any weight, etc.). The "theories" advanced by the "truth movement" have been debunked, dismissed, discarded, or ignored by effectively all of the published, mainstream, authoritative, and reliable sources on the topic. The coverage of these conspiracy theories in reliable sources does mean that they satisfy WP:NOTABLE, and thus pass the test necessary to have their own article in Wikipedia. However, satisfying the requirements for possible inclusion does not make any of the claims made by adherents notable for anything other than being conspiracy theories, nor does it mean the fringe views of conspiracy theorists need to be represented in an article on a mainstream topic (see WP:ONEWAY).  • The text fails to metion that the main reason the academic and scientific communities have not accepted any of these conspiracy theories is the simple fact that none of the "theories" are supported by the findings of any of the investigations that have been conducted (e.g., by the NIST, the building performance study team, published as FEMA 403: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, consisting of experts representing the American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (AISC), American Concrete Institute (ACI), Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), International Code Council (ICC), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), The Masonry Society (TMS), National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and New York Department of Design and Construction (DDC), or any of those conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.).  • There is also the misrepresentation of sources as "dedicated to rebuking the most common theories" when in fact those articles are dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories — rebuke, verb: "Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions"^[5]; debunk, verb: "Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)"^[6]. See also my comments above. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PARITY. -A1candidate (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:PARITY is about the parity of sources, not the parity of POVs. WP:PARITY states that verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory don't need to be published in a peer-reviewed journals. That doesn't even apply. For POVs, the guiding policy is WP:NPOV which clearly states that insignificant minority viewpoints like this do not belong in Wikipedia except perhaps in some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support in theory. Not in that form, but the accuracy of the first sentence merits its inclusion in the article. However, "hundreds of professionals..." is just wrong (I see no way to keep similar incorrect information out of the article) and some (if not all) of the others are undue weight considering the small amount of information in the article related to the alleged criticism. I think it appropriate to include just the first sentence under "Effects" — Arthur Rubin (talk)

  Support present version, provided that none of the sources are primary for the information provided. We need reliable sources that each sentence is both accurate and important, and primary sources do not indicate the importance. If not all the sentences can be properly sourced, I might reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  You've already !no voted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, combined !votes. The proposal changed in the intervening few days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only no, but hell no. There is already an entire article dedicated to the idea that some people do not conform to the normal practices of society and therefore will believe any crackpot theory, even if it cannot be proven. This article is about the events of the September 11th attacks, and as such, should only contain proven facts. It should not, however, contain any fairy tales from the land of make-believe. As far as I'm concerned, this article already gives too much weight to the fictional theories that evolved after this tragic event.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NPOV. We should not be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. If I may paraphrase Jimbo's famous e-mail of Sep 29, 2003 which is the key part of the NPOV policy: What do mainstream history texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within mainstream historians on this point?

• If your viewpoint is held by the majority of historians, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent historians, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article.

At best, this belongs in an ancilliary article, and that ancilliary article already exists: 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Editors here might not be familiar with the newest C-SPAN source[7] which I provided (it's less than a month old). The clip is crucial to this conversation, so I would like to request that editors please review it and consider the implications of C-SPAN giving a prominent adherant 45 minutes of Washington Journal to present his theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• How exactly is this crucial? Richard Gates is not an historian and his 9/11 conspiracy theories have never been published by any commonly accepted reference textbook, peer-reviewed academic journal or any other respected publication, and no prominent historians have accepted these conspiracy theories. As a comparison, journalist Lawrence Wright won a Pulitzer Prize for his book, "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" which plainly states that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. We do NOT give equal time legitimacy to outlandish conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone here is proposing "equal time". On the contrary, the proposal in this RfC is limited to a short, three-sentence paragraph which makes clear that the conspiracy theories are a minority view, although one shared by a surprising number of notable personalities. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• You didn't answer my question: How exactly is this crucial? In any case, I've struck through "equal time" and replaced it with "legitimacy". These "notable personalities" to which you refer are not respected historians and their work has not been published by peer-reviewed history journals. Per WP:NPOV, majority and significant minority viewpoints should be represented in this article. Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints should be delegated to an ancilliary article (which already exists). NPOV is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. If you really want the article to be changed, I suggest that you open an RfC at NPOV and have that policy changed. Until then, there's nothing we can do here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• OK I'll answer. First, about the clip, C-SPAN's Washington Journal "provides a forum for leading journalists and public policy makers to discuss key events and legislation."[8] On this show, they featured a prominent adherent of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, giving him 45 minutes of their show to present his theories to the American public. This is a brand new source, and needs to be taken into consideration. Second, the WP:NPOV page says nothing at all about "history journals" being required. Which policy, specifically, are you referencing? Smitty121981 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Any weight other than a single link to the other article is overweight for this garbage. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose; we already have a link to the sociological phenomenon, which is sufficient. Every national calamity engenders conspiracies, which are proportionate in craziness to the shock of the event. The proper fields of study are psychology and sociology, not history, engineering, or science. Reliable sources and experts have massive consensus that the events of that day were indeed caused by a conspiracy -- by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden -- as described in this article. This article is about history: what actually happened that day, as documented by reliable sources. The goofy conspiracy stuff is WP:FRINGE. (As an aside, I commend Smitty for maintaining a civil tone throughout -- previous discussions of this matter have been unnecessarily nasty.) Antandrus (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that I've been civil, that really does make me feel good to hear. The current Effects chapter (Health issues, weather, etc) is already well beyond the scope you described. Still, I did (just a minute ago) add a source from historian Robert A Goldberg who makes a case that conspiracy theories including 9/11 are a major component of history. And yeah psychologists and sociologists care about it... but I also have papers from engineering, law, and finance journals. Even geography journals talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories! "Grounding the geopolitical analysis of conspiracy discourse in these concerns, the types of geographies that might emerge is explored through empirical research conducted on and with the 9/11 Truth Movement."[9] and "Conspiratorial thought has been highly visible in post-September 11th America, manifest through the continued growth of a public ‘9/11 Truth Movement’" [10] Smitty121981 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I second the commendation to Smitty for keeping it civil in spite of the cringe-inducing hostility he has received from some of the regulars here. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Cla68, stop. I'm not going to tolerate any more insults from you. Do it again and you will be reported. Stop trying to stir up trouble. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarage, I invite you to join me in signing the pledge above in the section titled, "Intimidation-free zone". The pledge is this:

• I propose that we all agree that we will be more welcoming to editors who come here trying to improve this article by:

• Not revert-warring on this article talk page
• Not closing or "hatting" a discussion if specific article improvements or modifications are being discussed
• Not threatening other editors on this talk page with sanctions, topic bans, or blocks
• Not making any derogatory or personal comments about conspiracy theories or any other aspect of the 9/11 topic area
• Not leaving snarky, smug, or condescending edit summaries

• I was the first to sign it. Cla68 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And I am informing you that such a pledge is irrelevant and designed to imply that the editors here are somehow assuming bad faith. You are attempting to game the system and I for one do not appreciate it. For one thing, notifying editors about the sanctions is not and has never been a threat. It is only a way of informing editors about the special process this article has. I'm going to say this one more time: Drop the act, stop pretending to be the victim, and accept that people don't always agree with what you are saying. They are not somehow bullies or people attempting to own an article, they are humans like you. If you continue to play these games, I will report you. That is not a threat, that is an attempt to explain to you that your behavior is inappropriate. Do you understand? --Tarage (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the strong arguments made by A Quest For Knowledge, ArtifexMayhem, and Antandrus. I consider Wikipedia to have already given due weight. John Shandy` • talk 00:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Source Thanks everyone for the feedback. I think I have found a new source that addresses many of the concerns. (Re)imagining humane global governance published by Routledge (2014) and written by Richard A. Falk has a chapter titled "9/11 & 9/12 + 10 = the United States, al Qaeda, and the world". It says things like "This made al Qaeda a formidable and elusive adversary" and talks about Osama Bin Laden, the US military response, George W Bush, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... And within this historical context, on pg. 114 he says (emphasis added):

"This suspect interaction between recourse to allegedly defensive wars and the pursuit of imperial foreign policy goals has contributed to a widespread distrust of the official version of the nature of the 9/11 attacks, a lingering deep suspicion among large sectors of the public shared by some former government officials, which put forward the startling claim that this spectacular terrorist assault on the United States was either pre-arranged in some way or allowed to happen by those in authority. There were other causes of this atmosphere of societal suspicion and anti-government radicalism that has led defenders of the established order to adopt a posture of extreme defensiveness. Anyone daring to question the official account of 9/11, for instance, is immediately branded as 'a conspiracy theorist' without making an accompanying attempt to provide convincing answers to the now considerable body of evidence advanced by the 9/11 doubters."

Smitty121981 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What concerns does this source address, exactly? Does Falk provide any sources for his claims? Does he say what makes up this "considerable body of evidence"? Or where it may be found and reviewed? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that paragraph Smitty quotes does give a rationale for the surprisingly widespread belief in the conspiracy theories and also gives a reason for the extremely hostile backlash against people who appear to support them. That source appears to be a reliable source. It is published by a reputable publishing firm. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It addresses the specific concerns of historical context that some editors brought up, and it addresses the general concerns of notability due weight. A portion of this academic text, including the quote, is available on Google Books for editors to review. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Falk is well known as a supporter of 9/11 CT's and some have even gone as far as to label him as engaged in antisemitism. His opinion is as biased as it gets and he is not published on this matter as a neutral source.--MONGO 16:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it were true that he's a "9/11 CT supporter"(source?) - it would strengthen the case to include the conspiracy theories section in the main article because Falk is also known for being a Princeton Professor Emeritus and former UN appointee, among other accomplishments. Routledge describes him as, "esteemed scholar and public intellectual Richard Falk". Unsourced allegations of bias (most likely pertaining to an unrelated topic) are not sufficient to demonstrate that this is not a reliable source. Beyond the author's impressive credentials, this book is published by a peer-reviewed academic publisher, and they sell it as supplementary education to college textbooks PDF(page 7, International Relations Theory). Previously (2012), the same chapter I quoted was published in "Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems"(Vol. 21 No. 1) a journal of the University of Iowa College of Law. From the Princeton profile I linked to above:

Professor Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, and was Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara (2001–04). He retired from teaching in 2001. He is a member of the Editorial Boards of The Nation and The Progressive, and Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is a former advisory board member of the World Federalist Institute and the American Movement for World Government. He is Distinguished Visiting Professor in Global & International Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara . During 1999–2000, Falk worked on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo.

Smitty121981 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd...our own article seems to present a more balanced assessment than the overly supportive opinion you have provided. Maybe you should be there arguing with those that edit that article.--MONGO 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smitty121981: The question of whether 9/11 conspiracy theories are WP:NOTABLE was apparently answered about 10 years ago and is not in question. The questions here are not about notability, but rather about WP:WEIGHT. Obviously Falk's article is a reliable source for Falk's opinions, however it is not a reliable source for claims that 9/11 "doubters" have a "considerable body of evidence" that supports their claims or any other such nonsense. So, once again, put very simply, how does this source correct any of the WP:NPOV or WP:V defects found in the proposed text? And what text does the source support? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for using the term notability incorrectly, I crossed it out and changed it to due weight. I also added inline citations for the Falk source, for the "widespread" phrase and for "rebuking". In addition, this source addresses specific editor concerns about including the paragraph in general. Namely, some were concerned that reliable sources did not mention 9/11 Conspiracy Theories within the common historical context (al Qaeda, bin Laden, etc) - and this source does just that. He clearly frames 9/11 conspiracy theories as a significant historical Effect of 9/11. Further, I bolded the "evidence" statement to call attention to the weight that this reliable source gives to the subject. It's an educational text from an established publisher that is used as a secondary source. Smitty121981 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose CTs in the main article in any way. They aren't relevant to explaining the nexus that caused the attacks, the attacks or the result of the attacks. That a few nutters people went off on a tangent for whatever reason, doesn't change the actual history. We don't add a "Man living side-by-side with dinosaurs" section, sentence or reference in the Hominids articles because some people adamantly speak on it. There are sources that say so but we don't give it voice even if the speaker has advanced degrees because it's so far fringe that only a walled garden of belief canm give it credence without ridicule. Fringe is fringe. Wall them off into their domain where their voice can echo against the cavern of knowledge they invented. It does the reader a great disservice to lend more credibility than mainstream science gives them, which is nothing and it would be a BLP violation to destroy their claim of sanity with facts. --DHeyward (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as giving undue weight to fringe views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose yet again. This is still giving undue weight to fringe views and there is already a article for these "views". How many more times do we have to discuss this? This has been comprehensively discussed and consensus was reached, but we still have yet more posts from Smitty121981 trying to change the article. It is really time to close this thread. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• David, RfCs normally run for 30 days so as to give editors who may not normally be active in this article or topic a chance to provide input. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Cla68Your reply above is frankly an excuse. You are well aware that consensus has been already reached and you are just trying to prolong the discussion. Your own statements on your User page regarding Wikipedia show you have little respect for the encyclopedia or its aims. Tarage, below, is more than fair in their comments. David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I gave the previous discussion a week, and I'll give this one the same. Considering how quickly this is failing to generate a positive consensus, a week is more than enough time. --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: the previous conversation was not given a week as we agreed upon, but was closed less than 48 hours[11] later. This closure led directly to the opening instead of a formal RfC (at another editor's suggestion), and now that we are here a full thirty days will do just fine, thank you. Smitty121981 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with letting the RfC run the usual 30 days. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• I will only agree to the 30 day run if Smitty121981 agrees that if consensus continues to be this strongly against that they will not attempt to re-open this or make a new RfC about the same topic directly after. --Tarage (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would only reluctantly agree to a 30 day run if Smitty121981 respects the current consensus, instead of ignoring it with endless further "theories" and does not reopen the topic again with another RfC after the 30 day period ends. David J Johnson (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith on the part of Smitty121981. If Smitty121981 refuses to abide by the results of the RfC, that's a different story, and we can cross that bridge if necessary. Until then, we should all remember to be civil and avoid the personalization of disputes. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely agree with A Quest For Knowledge, as far as I'm aware my comments have been civil. However, we must not forget that it is one editor who is ignoring the present consensus and constantly introducing further conspiracy theories into a factual article Talk page - especially when there is already a page devoted to these "theories" - that is where this material belongs. My own view is that this has been discussed long enough, but as I have stated above, I am prepared to agree to a 30 day run on the basis that we are not confronted with endless further theories - which really belong in another place. David J Johnson (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm really surprised at the attitude here. WP's model clearly indicates that article texts are in constant flux. Article talk pages are to be used for content discussion and improvement, witouth fear or reprisal if the rules are followed. Smitty has done everything right. He has introduced new sources to support his suggestions. He has remained civil in the face of cringe-inducing hostility from some of the regulars here. He has followed WP's procedures to the letter, in spite of broken promises, provocations, and threats from other editors, some of whom have been editors here for years. Yet, a couple of you are still strying to intimidate him into going away or giving up, or trying to prematurely close this RfC. It's exactly the opposite of how WP is supposed to work and I think this attitude is one of the reasons that WP has been shedding editors like a sheep being sheared for several years now. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• If doing 'everything right' means causing conversation to occur in four different places at once, then we have a very different definition of the word 'right'. And you know full well that the rules work a bit differently here. As noted in the header of this talk page, discretionary sanctions are in effect here, and any editor seen as attempting to game the system to attempt to introduce POV into the article can be removed from this talk page and their discussions closed. You are correct that Smitty121981 has mostly done things in the right way, but at the same time I can't help but be dismayed that they have ignored my advice of starting on the conspiracy theory page to gain consensus there before attempting to dive into the deep end of this issue. So far, I have not seen a single new reliable source that somehow changes how the last hundred debates have ended. It's one thing to open a RfC when something changes. It's another to open one because you haven't gotten your way. As the list of editors line up to again state their opposition to a proposal that has been attempted numerous times in numerous different forms, I can't help but wonder what the point of all this is. Worse, I am not looking forward to seeing this same debate occur in a scant few months from now when another editor decides that "You guys just don't get it". We get it. We just don't agree. --Tarage (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I want to remind everyone that consensus can change. "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." Both the C-SPAN source and the Falk book are previously unconsidered (due to them being so new) and both add an unprecedented amount of weight and deserve consideration. Other sources like Goldberg, Manwell, and Sunstein might not have been considered in this context before - a quick archive search returned no results. But are these new sources enough to sway consensus? Maybe not, and that's OK. One thing I think we can all agree on: most editors here have a very high standard on this topic (and there's nothing wrong with that). A deeper understanding of exactly what constitutes this standard, in more article-specific terms than general wiki guidelines, could be a realistic agreement we can strive for in this RfC. Arriving in a civil manner at this understanding will not just close this conversation, but could also help editors more effectively deal with the apparent inevitability of similar debates occurring in the future. Smitty121981 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Which is exactly what I tried to do when I pointed you towards the conspiracy theory article and advised you to start from there. As is being made obvious by this RfC, those two sources are not enough to sway consensus. I understand what you are trying to do, and I appreciate it. You are trying to make this article better. But you have to understand that what you are doing is something that happens every few months on these talk pages. Some well meaning editor comes in with a new source they believe will somehow change consensus, we argue for a while, and consensus doesn't change. Sometimes the editor leaves to work on other articles. Sometimes they lash out at the editors here in some misguided notion that we are somehow government plants. Some get forcefully removed. I tried to warn you before you went down this path that you were very likely going to end up failing because your argument has been rejected over and over and over again every few months for years. The odds of you magically finding the missing piece that turns consensus around is astronomically slim. If you wish to learn, spend some time going over the archives. Spend some time in the 9/11 conspiracy theory talk page. Familiarize yourself with your surroundings so you don't waste your time. Sadly, you choose to do this instead. The results are par for the course. --Tarage (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any expansion of CT coverage in this article as overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Giving undue weight (equal coverage) to fringe theories is a violation of WP:NPOV. Equal coverage should only ever be afforded to theories/ideas that have a similar level of credibility. AlanS (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. The fact that 9/11 conspiracy theories exist as a cultural phenomenon is a no-brainer...the problem is that this article is NOT about those theories because we already have multiple articles that detail these various tenants...if those articles did not exist, then a summary paragraph here would be needed. By fringe we mean that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are not published in independent peer reviewed journals or scientific enterprises...experts in engineering, aviation, terrorism etc. do not support any aspect of these fringe beliefs. Self proclaimed experts on the subject are almost universally misrepresenting their credentials and or falsifying data to deliberately skew results to better comply with their preconceived and erroneous beliefs. Frankly, I find the 9/11 conspiracy theories to be amongst some of the most intellectually deficient series of ideas to ever be postulated.--MONGO 15:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral, although not an adherent to any of the conspiracy theories, the content is very well sourced, and neutrally worded, and doesn't appear to promote the subject. However, I can see how some would argue WP:FRINGE, while others argue WP:PARITY, that being said I think it could be more neutral if the following sentence were taken out:

Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials, and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse.

Allow those theories be discussed on the relevant page. At most I would weakly support inclusion of the two sentences left after removing the other two, only to give it some weight without giving it undue weight. These two sentences could be within the Cultural sub-section, where the link to the conspiracy theory article already exist. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Edit After reviewing the comments and the wiki guidelines, I crossed out the insider trading phrase. I can see how including this could be an unwarranted promotion of a specific theory. WP:FRINGE says "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." I realized that isolated insider trading research might not directly pertain to the relationship between the marginal idea and the mainstream idea. A secondary source which relates the research to 9/11 in a significant way would be required in this instance, and I have not found one. However, I do still think that the rest of the second sentence is all about this relationship, and I think the article would be less neutral without it. Thoughts? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Also, just now changed prevailing theory to scientific theory. I think this is more neutral, and helps distinguish between the two different uses of "theory" in one paragraph. Smitty121981 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• The well known facts and widely accepted results of numerous investigations are not a "theory" in any way, shape, or form. The "criticisms" you cite are show to be factually incorrect and carry no weight on the topic. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• from NCSTAR 1: NIST "combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence for each tower". I'm not sure it's appropriate to refer to it as a fact, because 'fact' tends to imply more certainty than 'probable'. However, I am open to other suggestions. The "criticisms" you mention do carry weight (in my opinion) because they were published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and the International Journal of Protective Structures. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Focus on the NIST's use of the word "probable" in reference to the minute details of the collapse sequence is a red herring. We know exactly why the buildings failed.

• Abstract, pg. xiii.

This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings; whether the fatalities were low or high, including an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the towers; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

• E.3 Summary of findings, pg. xxxviii

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

— Sunder, S. S. (2005), Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST NCSTAR 1)

Please supply any reliable sources that refute this, or that label the findings of the NIST, or those of the numerous other investigations, as "theory."

• There is no doubt that discussion comments submitted by four authors (Björkman, Gourley, Grabbe, and Szuladziński) on specific peer-reviewed papers were published in a major engineering journal (specifically in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics). However, the idea that the journal's editors published the comments because they "apparently found them sufficiently qualified for publication"[12] is unsourced speculation. Likewise, your opinion that they carry any weight is also unsourced and unsupported. One could just as easily speculate that the editors saw all of the flaws in the submitted comments and decided that, as a public service, some professional, major peer-reviewed engineering journal style debunking by unquestionably authoritative experts was in order. The latter seems more likely given the fact that the published closures found the "critiques" to be invalid (with at least one author told to "become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics"; see closures for Björkman , Gourley , Grabbe , and Szuladzinski ). Of course we need not speculate on the editors motivations because ultimately these "critiques" are never discussed in other reliable sources as being anything more than the unsupported, factually incorrect, opinions of conspiracy theorists.

The paper by Szuladzinski, Szamboti, and Johns is published in the little know International Journal of Protective Structures and has never been cited or shown to have any support out side the truther community. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I think we are just disagreeing on semantics? I am not trying to downplay NIST's investigation at all. Using the phrasing and wikilink "scientific theory" directly implies to readers that NIST used the scientific method to arrive at a solid conclusion. This is supported by your quote because they mention rejecting alternative hypotheses. In a scientific context "theory" implies a great deal of certainty and acceptance. "The scientific method attempts... to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory."[13]
• That's a good point about the discussions. It seems like a secondary source is going to be needed in this situation, as with the insider trading. I will see what I can find. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Source This source unequivocally establishes due weight. Editors who still think otherwise will need to explain themselves in a clear and convincing manner that addresses this source directly, in addition to Falk and C-SPAN. What better way for us to determine due weight than consulting The 9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition published under "Topics: Military History/Terrorism"? First, a sanity check: what do they say about the other topics in the Effects chapter? Just like the wikipedia article, Health issues are a section (pg. 239-241). Economic effects are a section (pg. 151-152). I could not find the three day increase in temperature range (but I do love this little tidbit and would like to keep it). Do they cover conspiracy theories? Without a doubt - not tucked away in some other section for fear of someone seeing it, but in a full section of it's own (pg 124 - 126), handled just the same as Health and Economic effects. And that's not all. They even did full sections on prominent adherents like Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Jim Marrs, and James Fetzer. But, it's such a long book you say, this is just a little article. OK, let's check the preface (pg. xiii-xvi), a smaller-than-wikipedia-sized summary. "Also of interest are the conspiracy theories that have emerged over the last five years." and this is not all that is said about them - even in the short preface they are given a considerable amount of weight. The preface and the conspiracy theory section are available on Google books to review. One thing you will notice is that conspiracy theories are the only Effect discussed in the preface. To further drive the point home, the entire paragraph I am proposing can be found paraphrased in the conspiracy theories section (now that I removed insider trading!):

9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition	proposed paragraph
"From the day after the attacks on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories appeared and began to spread"	"Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon."
"The conspiracy theorists started with a hypothesis challenging the official version"	"Conspiracy advocates state that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials"
"arguing that jet fuel alone could not cause the extensive damage"	"and that criticisms have been made of the scientific theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse."
"Any data that did not conform to their preconceived ideas were discounted ... Dewdney's theory lacks credibility for a number of reasons"	"None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities"
"Media in both France and the United States have attacked [Meyssan's] book for its bizaare claims ... Although critics have dismissed them as unfounded"	"and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories."

I'll end by finishing the last sentence above. "Although critics have dismissed them as unfounded, conspiracy theories and theorists nevertheless remain an important facet of the ongoing discussions about September 11." Smitty121981 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The format in the encyclopedia you mention is their business...we.do it according to our guidelines and policies. I really don't know why some above are being as charitable as they are towards you. Three years ago you tried to hijack the article on 7 World Trade Center with your conspiracy POV pushing and after that failed you disappeared for three years... upon your return you did some edits to a couple unrelated articles to give the appearance of not being a single purpose account but have, not surprisingly, resumed your same POV pushing here. You are the textbook example of the civil POV pusher. You need to be topic banned as you are only here to promote conspiracy theories.--MONGO 18:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Smitty121981 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Incorrect, MONGO's comments are absolutely correct. Almost every day is another comment from you in spite of the consensus that already exists. I very much doubt if you are going to change any editors mind with your constant comments. Please accept the current consensus and be glad that editors have given the article time for further comment for any interested parties. It is impossible not to comment on your actions - there are simply too many. I certainly agree that you seem to be a prime candidate for a civil POV pusher and a single purpose account. As I and others have commented many times, there is already an article for these theories and they have no place here. David J Johnson (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I second Smitty. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Smitty is doing some really good work here trying to improve this article, and I think we need to be a little more supportive. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• That really is a classic comment from Cla68 who in his own contributions has no faith in Wikipedia. It is correct that we should focus on the content and not the contributor, but when a contributor totally ignores consensus - time and time again - and is only supported by someone who is critical, by their own admission, of Wikipedia; what can any editor do, but to mention editors by name? Barring any contributions from uninvolved editors in the next few days, it is time to close this topic down. The editor in question has already form in trying to hijack another article on 9/11 some years ago and was unsuccessful. the same should happen here. Time and time again, it has been mentioned by editors that there is already a article for conspiracy theories and there is no place for them here. David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support a one or two paragraph-long subsection on conspiracy theories but oppose Smitty's suggestion. Right now we have a mention of the conspiracy theories buried in a sub-section that mostly talks about unrelated matters. Given the extent of coverage the conspiracy theories get in reliable sources, this does not accurately reflect their prominence relative to coverage of the attacks.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

While it was nice of Smitty121981 to invite you here, your assertions on the "prominence" of conspiracy theories has no basis in fact. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 75 names of notable people on this list. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE does not confer WP:WEIGHT. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, I knew this discussion was going on well before Smitty left any message on my talk page. As far as your statement, reliable sources do make frequent mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and not just in the context of discussing them or people adhering to them, but as part of general treatments of the subject of 9/11. Smitty noted an example with the 9/11 Encyclopedia, but there are many others that can be provided.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I support the new version put forward by Smitty. I don't think the AE911 C-SPAN source is necessary, but that is not a major qualm.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It appears as though the extent of coverage about conspiracy theories gets a fair shake in Wikipedia. September 11 attacks is currently 171,248 bytes versus 9/11 conspiracy theories which is 200,071 bytes. Location (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly...and even the 9/11 conspiracy theories article has daughter articles as well...such as World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories...but even with that coverage, the CT crowd is still not pleased...they always want more.--MONGO 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Oppose I have avoided commenting here for a while, having pretty much said all I had to say farther up the page. But, I'll say it again... The proposal gives undue weight to a topic labeled "preposterous" by mainstream media. It gives undue weight to the notion that "hundreds of professionals and officials" have any actual professional standing or qualifications to comment with authority on this subject or that they represent their professions or institutions in any way. It gives undue weight to theoretical statistical analyses which ignore specific legal investigations of specific traders. Conspiracy theories are a fact of daily life, and virtually any news event can give rise to them. It's completely unsurprising that the 9/11 attacks produced a bumper crop, but conspiracy theories are social and psychological phenomena, not unique to 9/11, and not worthy of any special mention. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to comment[14]. I noticed that you said "It gives undue weight to theoretical statistical analyses which ignore specific legal investigations of specific traders" but I actually crossed that line out already (just a few days ago), maybe you missed it? The proposal does not mention insider trading at all anymore. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's good, but my principle objection is the issue of undue weight to the Internet echo chamber's creations, and the credulity the proposed wording grants to CT. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree the version proposed by Smitty has POV issues, the current coverage in this article is a singular sentence that provides no worthwhile information on the significance of 9/11 CTs. It basically just announces that they exist and even then it is getting buried amidst a bunch of trivial unrelated information. The article on the OKC bombing, a featured article, has a paragraph-length sub-section devoted to conspiracy theories. I do not see any chance of this article getting such status unless conspiracy theories receive similar coverage. There are a bunch of other things impeding it, but that is one of them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I am no friend to conspiracy theories and Internet tinfoil hattery in general as a basis for serious encyclopedic content. I'm fine with articles about the CTs, I'm OK with simple links, but I've consistently opposed their non-trivial inclusion in primary articles on a broad basis in Wikipedia, or the attempted imposition of a false balance in articles associated with CTs and fringe theories. Rather like the now-disliked "in popular media" sections, CT sections have become a widespread plague in articles about nearly any current event to which a CT can conceivably be attached. Almost the only primary-subject article where I support such material's inclusion is in the JFK assassination article, largely because the HSCA investigation was equivocal. There is no such equivocation associated with 9/11. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's a very good point that TDA makes about the Oklahoma City article having a full paragraph on the conspiracy theories and it's a featured article. The conspiracy theories are an even more notable aspect of this topic than that one. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE. The page at present gives a short-sentence on conspiracy theories:

9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

— The page

This sentence could be expanded slightly without crossing the line of UNDUE, provided our focus is on the social effects of the conspiracy theories, we must always avoid giving discredited theories unnecessary credence. But the proposed paragraph is way too much weight to a discredited WP:FRINGE theory. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support the updated paragraph per WP:ONEWAY and WP:DUE. This is a much better version, which arguably does not express support for these ridiculous theories. This is the right amount of simple text, with a link for those who wish to explore further. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support but not in currently proposed form. Particularly I object to the "hundreds of professionals" bit. Strong Support The new proposed wording solves the issues I had with the previous wording. My other opinions still apply. (Zell Faze (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)) I think that with how many conspiracy theorists there are out there and the attention that has been given to them that it deserves its own sub-heading. I do not think that giving it a sub-heading would qualify as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. To this day I still run across both new conspiracy theories and new people debunking them, and not just among random non-notable people as well. As recently as 2011 Skeptic Magazine was covering the phenomena. Zell Faze (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Edit After considering feedback from editors, I have completely revised the second sentence - "hundreds of professionals", which many editors objected to, is gone. Also, I went through and redid all the references, with many fewer now in total, and there is a link now for every single one (I hope it's appropriate to link to Google Books?) Smitty121981 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The two sentence critical reception of the Commission, of this one book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, I think is given undue weight. A single medium length sentence I think should suffice.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is why a RfC was a bad idea. RfCs are usually good if you have a solid idea you want an up or down vote on. Constantly changing things means that nearly every previous vote must be thrown out. I understand that you really want this edit and I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but I do not understand what this exercise is going to accomplish anymore. I'm going to suggest once more that you close this RfC, go work a bit on the conspiracy theories page while you continue to get feedback from editors who have given you such, and re-start it in a while. I don't want to see your time wasted given how much effort you are putting in. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't the whole idea of an RfC to Request Comment on something? These are !votes so I see no reason in changing the text if the response of several RfC participants seems to warrant it. He went the extra mile in notifying me on my talk page that the proposed text had changed in case I wanted to re-review it. Zell Faze (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Tarage: I don't see anything wrong with making corrections during the RfC, but as you can see, nobody has changed their mind. Right now, the consensus is overwhelmingly against the change even with the corrections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: If it's written and sourced properly, this wouldn't be a problem, per Andrewaskew's reasoning above. One paragraph and {{Main|9/11 conspiracy theories}} should cover it. I would not include much detail, per WP:UNDUE. The idea I see too much of above is that we shouldn't be covering this stuff at all, but that's a discussion for an AfD of 9/11 conspiracy theories, an article I would keep. I have actually used it in real life as a WP reader to catch up on what these conspiracy theories are and why they're off base, as I sometimes encounter people who subscribe to one or another of them. It's important that it be findable from this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose In light of recent events and due to the fact that I no longer feel this RfC can do it's job, I am opposing changes. Consensus has not changed enough to warrant these edits. --Tarage (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Yet again! For all the reasons mentioned in Tarage's comments directly above this contribution. Let us close this discussion down, leave the article as it is and direct the other theories to the appropriate "Conspiracy" page. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There are 60 pages of recorded history here, opinions, insults, conservations... some more prominent than others...

I understand that casual onlookers won't bother to see... but there should be a notice on top of the article which clearly states that the neutrality of this article is constantly, preposterous really, disputed. Anybody who comes here to check what's going on can see that you're quarreling most, if not all of the time. Other articles warn that dispute is taking place, why not this one? Historycommons (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Emotions are clearly running high among some of the opposers here. Can I remind folks why the article lost its GA status and has never regained it? As the events slip further into the past it should become more possible to write and edit dispassionately about it. Some folks need to separate patriotism from encyclopedic NPOV, in my opinion. We do not endorse theories by reporting them. --John (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• There appears to be a severe misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV actually means. NPOV does not mean that we report all POVs. Rather, NPOV means that we present majority and significant minority POVs. Insignificant minority viewpoints should excluded or delegated to ancillary articles if they are notable on their own (see WP:WEIGHT for more). Yes, I realize that some people think that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 or that it was a controlled demolition or that the jets were holograms and a laser beam actually took down the towers. There are also people who think that bigfoot is real, that little green men crashed at Roswell, and that Queen Elizabeth II is a shape-shifting reptilian humanoid. But, Wikipedia strives to be serious encyclopedia. NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. Let me repeat that: NPOV is non-negotiable. I suggest to anyone who wants fringe viewpoints included in the article, the way to go about it is to get NPOV changed. Open an RfC at NPOV. I think most editors would oppose such a sweeping change just as most editors oppose this RfC's suggested change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

lol, neutral point of view is neutral point of view, what you wrote above is an example of bias, it's a good one, I'll give you that. I'm telling you folks, this doesn't look healthy from the outside. Historycommons (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you don't like Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV, you are free to try to change it. Here's a direct link to NPOV's talk page.[15] Go ahead, open a discussion on why you think NPOV should be changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll play videogame (I'm user)... you have generic editorial guidelines, yes? Follow the rules... I'm not even sure if this discussion has valid proposition. Article should reflect the fact that people question 9/11? Yes? There's certainly more than one way to spell it somewhere without bias (or word conspiracy). But I don't think that's the issue here, I'll just observe once again that each time I visit (few times a year) same people paddle same crap over and over again. It's like never-ending crap. Historycommons (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You only have 3 edits to Wikipedia, all of which are to this talk page.[16] Why don't you log into your regular account and then come talk to us? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sry bro... real life, reddit, hearthstone... no time for entries, which reminds me, why are you having this tedious dispute without notice? Historycommons (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I will. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 for why the group opining against this proposal are working against the improvement of the article, however well-meaningly. --John (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the result of broad consensus from the entire community whereas WP:GA is the opinion of a single editor. But again, if you want to change all that, know where to go. That fact that you won't speaks volumes, and I'm not even sure what you expect to accomplish as long as NPOV remains unchanged. Even if some how you were able to convince the editors of this RfC to ignore NPOV, local consensus does not and cannot override community consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Do me a favour and stop randomly emboldening words. How do you mean "WP:GA is the opinion of a single editor"? Read the discussion again. It was more than one editor who thought the article needed delisting, and an uninvolved admin closed the discussion as such. Have you actually read the discussion recently? --John (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's random, then try reading it again. No, I don't need to read the discussion since I was there. My point, which seems to allude you, is that it only takes a single editor to approve a WP:GA article whereas NPOV is the will of the entire community. Again, this discussion is pointless until you have NPOV changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for easing off on the shouting. Your opinion on NPOV has been stated many times now and has been noted. In the discussion we had three years ago it became apparent that many experienced Wikipedians disagreed with your opinion. --John (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd. The vast majority of editors who participated in the last RfC on this issue, as well as the current RfC, agree that to give undue weight to a fringe theory is a violation of NPOV. Yes, there are small number of editors who disagree, but the consensus is in favor of upholding NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What is that small number, User:A Quest For Knowledge? Between Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2, how many respected, experienced editors, who mainly edit other areas and participate in Peer Review, declined to endorse your little local consensus here about NPOV? Tarage, have you counted? Are you going to call all of them SPAs or "CTers"? Were any of them pinged for this RfC? It would be interesting to see what they thought about the article's changes over the last two years. --John (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If the majority of editors agreed with you, how do you explain the fact that in the last RfC, the commmunity concensus was in favor of upholding WP:NPOV? If the majority of editors agreed with you, how do you explain the fact that in the current RfC, the community consensus continues to uphold NPOV? To put it bluntly, your argument rests on the mistaken belief all POVs should get equal weight. That is demonstrably wrong. Here's what NPOV actually says:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

"From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

" *If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

" *If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority', then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

" *If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

I'm sorry, but since you don't seem to have an argument based on policy, there's little point in continuing this. You may have the last word. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The view that conspiracy theories are significant as an Effect of 9/11 is quickly becoming the mainstream viewpoint. Yes, I said it. By now, dozens and dozens of reliable sources have published this viewpoint, including within the general historical context of al Qaeda et al. No one here is disputing the verbiage of WP:NPOV or trying to get around it in any way, and I actually worked closely with editors here to fix the POV problems that my original proposal had. @A Quest For Knowledge: I noticed that you have chosen to completely ignore the coverage in The 9/11 Encyclopedia, even though I have specifically asked you about it multiple times and you remained very active in this conversation. Why is that? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I... I'm trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm getting lost somewhere along the line. Are you trying to tell us that we should mention more about conspiracy theories because an online encyclopedia does? One outside of the Wikipedia foundation? Because if that is what you are saying, I need to put a stop to that right this instant. Wikipedia doesn't care at all about what any other online encyclopedia says or does. If we did, the Star Wars article alone would comprise half of this site. No, consensus, as things stand right now, is still 8 more votes against than for. I have not forgotten our deal, by the way. I will be closing this discussion after a month, because we are just repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. I would like John to reply to what I said below, but otherwise I've said all I intend to say on this issue. Does anyone have anything new to say? Anyone? --Tarage (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not an "online encyclopedia", it's a 2-volume reference book[17] that is WP:RELIABLE and is currently listed in the Further reading on the article. Please take the time to look at the references before commenting on them, thanks. And that's not the only source! The Eleventh Day, listed currently in the Bibliography, devotes an entire chapter to conspiracy theories and focuses, as I eventually did, on the LIHOP / MIHOP aspect. I have many more reliable sources, would you like me to list them all? Second, you yourself will not be closing this conversation. It's likely that I will request an uninvolved editor to formally close it at the end of 30 days. Third, sorry the previous comment confused you - I have now added the editor's name to whom I was talking. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my favorite part about John's statement is that somehow, it's the editors here who are preventing anything from getting done. When was the last time a new editor came here deciding that they wanted to clean up the Health Issues section? Or perhaps the Casualties section? Or how about any section outside of those directly pertaining to the conspiracy theories of this article? I wager to bet quite a long time. You can stand there and act all high and mighty about how the editors are working against this article, but you ignore the fact that the talk page is full of single purpose accounts who come here to undermine it, not help it. If an editor came to work on ANY other section and wanted help, they would be welcomed with open arms. So do tell John, if this is all our fault, why do we only ever see CT editors trying to insert NPOV? --Tarage (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell you why you see the world the way you do, as I am not qualified to do that. All I can really do is challenge your tired and insulting mantra that anyone who differs from the "party line" you and your friends have established at this article is part of some shady conspiracy. Are you seriously and honestly saying that User:SandyGeorgia, User:Wehwalt, User:Dank, User:Nikkimaria, User:cs32en (from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 where nobody at all supported the nomination), and also User:EyeSerene, User:Eric Corbett, myself, User:Nonukes, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Moxy, User:ErrantX, User:Geometry guy, User:Ironholds, User:Aircorn, and User:Parrot of Doom (from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 where the only people supporting retention of GA status were from the group of people fighting here to maintain the article as it is); are you saying every single one of us is a "CT editor"? Really? Or could it just possibly be that there is something wrong with this article? --John (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to know you don't bother reading posts before replying to them. People posting during a GA status review is fine and dandy, and has been helpful for improving the article, but where are they outside of those times? Where is the random editor who decides "You know what? I want to improve X on the 9/11 page" where X is something unrelated to CT? Why are the archives filled with people who want to edit a very VERY small section of this article over and over and over and over? Why is it such a large problem that we had to have discretionary sanctions put in place? You claim the editors here are holding back this article, and I claim that outside of the editors here, very few people have even attempted to edit anything outside of the CT topics, and those that did met with little to no conflict because of it. And I'm still waiting for you to refute that point. And I know you can't. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unwarranted and unwelcome. Do you seriously think the atmosphere at this talk page is conducive to people dropping in and improving anything? That was, what, 16? experienced editors who looked at the article, then decided not to get involved in improving the article although they identified serious problems with it. You tell me; why do you think they didn't? I can only speak for myself; I decided not to work on improving this article because of the high level of snark and lack of good faith, as exhibited in your recent posts in a fairly mild form. I think to people like you, anything at all outside of the official 9/11 report and some memorialising about how terribly awful it was, constitutes "CT topics". Am I wrong? I offered a couple of decent book sources three or four years ago for how surprising the non-intervention of the USAF was. Have they been incorporated? At the time I was called a "CTer" for my good-faith and well-referenced suggestion. Is this an example of a "CT topic"? If you think it is you prove my point. You say "we" had to have discretionary sanctions put in place; who do you regard as "we"? Who are the "they" you implicitly think you are guarding the article against? Do you also see how daft a label "CT" is when the official narrative is a conspiracy theory? --John (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please try to keep the conversation on topic. Beyond that, all editors here are strongly encouraged to avoid escalating the situation any further. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You are cute John, you really are. "Well, you guys only get CT editors because other editors are scared to come here and edit." Then why are people more than happy to share their views on this RfC? Why have a majority of them come out against it? Are they all a part of the cabal? You can claim all you wish, but I have yet to see you pull up a single diff where an editor who decided to come here and edit something outside of a scant few areas of this article and was somehow met with hostility. You can bluster and whine and moan all you want, but you don't have a shred of evidence backing you up. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You aren't here to contribute, you are here to stir the pot, like you always do. How about you come back when you have something more to contribute than bad faith? --Tarage (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's true that the 9/11 Encyclopedia has a dedicated article to conspiracy theories. Just like Wikipedia. They also have entire articles devoted to David Ray Griffin and James Fetzer. Just like Wikipedia. You'll note that they're separate articles. Just like Wikipedia. Except for the preface, they don't intersperse conspiracy theories with the so-called "official" explanation. Just like Wikipedia. Even if they intertwined conspiracy theories with the articles on the "official" explanation, it's still only one source. WP:NPOV requires that we examine the broad spectrum of reliable sources. There are literally tens of thousands of sources on 9/11. Seeking out one source that says something different that all the other sources is a classic definition of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:Thank you for addressing The 9/11 Encyclopedia. It's certainly not the only source though. The Eleventh Day, listed in the current Bibliography, devotes an entire chapter to conspiracy theories and this book was a Pulitzer Prize nominee. I have many reliable sources that I have not posted yet including a peer-reviewed history journal, would you like me to list them all? Smitty121981 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I want you to provide me a list of all the sources that don't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Was that sarcastic? What do you have to say about the coverage of conspiracy theories in The Eleventh Day? It's on Google Books. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Which dismisses the CTs as fantasy and which concludes that the common conspiracy theories are non-credible sideshows that distract from the actual failings that kept the attacks from being forestalled. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Does it? How exciting. Isn't the accepted explanation for this event a conspiracy theory? Will this article still be a turd floating in a toilet in 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I wouldn't be surprised, given the discussion here. I take no view on the RfC, and this will be my last comment here for a good while. If you wanted to improve the article beyond its current state, there are many obvious steps you could take. I accept that there is a sizable group of editors who prefer to keep the article as it is for now. Ping me if you ever wish to retry peer review. Until then, --John (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's cute that you didn't even dare to answer my request and show proof of an editor who was bullied for trying to fix something not related to CTs. I guess it must be hard to argue when you know you are wrong. John, I can safely say you will not be missed. Do come back if you ever decide to do anything more than bluster about how evil the editors are here. Maybe then you'll actually accomplish something for a change. --Tarage (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I am familiar with the content of the source and I feel that it supports the current proposal, both in content and weight. Have you seen the new wording I worked on? It's quite a bit different from when you were last here and I feel it is representative now of the coverage in The Eleventh Day, which talks about the MIHOP/LIHOP aspect (as does the preface to The 9/11 Encyclopedia, and many other sources). Smitty121981 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've said at least twice before, my principle objection is based on a more generalized concern that Wikipedia gives undue weight to fringe and conspiracy theories encyclopedia-wide. This is an apparently intractable consequence of Wikipedia's content-generation model, in which fringe and conspiracy enthusiasts can wear down more moderate voices through sheer persistence, bringing the same thing up again and again, and forcing a 100kb argument on an annual basis on a subject in which nothing new has happened for years. Acroterion (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'm going to ask you a third time, since you keep commenting: what do you think of the new wording? It certainly addresses your many of your earlier concerns. Smitty121981 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm being completely serious. Your argument comes across as coming from someone who doesn't understand WP:WEIGHT. There are literally thousands and thousands of sources about 9/11. Probably 99.99% never even mention conspiracy theories. Let's say you find one or two sources that do. So what? That's a teansy weasy minority. I've said this several times now, and I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but WP:NPOV establishes 3 categories or classifications of POVs:

1. Majority
2. Significant minority
3. Insignificant minority

9/11 conspiracy theories are an insignificant minority. NPOV explicitly states "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Now, you've argued that you want it included not as a POV, but as an effect, which is fine. Except we already cover 9/11 conspiracy theories as an effect. It's in the article right now. There's no reason why we need to expand the coverage we already provide. If readers want to know more about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they can simply click on the link and it takes the reader directly to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
The fact is that most editors disagree with your suggested change. You need to accept that consensus has gone against your suggestion and move on. Is there anything else in the article you would like to work on besides expanding the amount of coverage that fringe theories get? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: "There are literally thousands and thousands of sources about 9/11. Probably 99.99% never even mention conspiracy theories." I'm sorry, but that claim is completely unsubstantiated. I have provided several sources to the contrary and can easily provide many more. Conspiracy theories did not become widely recognized as a significant effect immediately, but rather it took a few years for them to form and even longer for people to notice them (news sources began talking about them in 2006 2005, and more serious publications began talking about them with NCSTAR 1-A in late 2008). Therefore, your case will be much stronger if you find sources published 2009 or later that don't mention them... but in my research these sources are few and far between. For example, every single source on the current article (in Further Reading or Bibliography) from the last five years talks about conspiracy theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, I have found only one historical 9/11 source that puts conspiracy theories within a cultural section, as the current article does. Specifically, "9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide" By Tom Lansford [18]. However, it's important to note that their paragraph matches the content of my proposal nearly identically (pg 34). Smitty121981 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, I was wrong, there are actually a few that put it within culture. I am in the process of compiling a list of sources now. Smitty121981 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd, and demonstrably so. Here's every single source currently listed in the article from 2009:

• White House power grabs - August 26, 2009
• Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial - November 13, 2009
• 9/11’s Litany of Loss, Joined by Another Name - Sept 12, 2009
• Alleged 9/11 Plotters Face Trial Blocks From WTC Site - Nov 13, 2009
• Young children's responses to September 11th: The New York City experiences - 13 JAN 2009
• Musharraf `bullied` into supporting US war on terror: ex-General - December 11, 2009
• The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications - 13 JAN 2009

Not one mention conspiracy theories. Not one. Zero. Zip. Zich. Nada. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Those are all from inline citations and therefore about specific topics. Of course there won't be a mention of conspiracy theories in a source strictly limited to a specific trial, or lymphoma, or KSM, or Musharraf, etc. These sources are the equivalent of news stories dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and we both know there are plenty of those. Read my comment again, I said in Further Reading and Bibliography as these are the sources that have a general 9/11 context. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Maybe we could take a step toward the neutral dispassion John seeks if we described the perpetrators as Asian men. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite getting your drift there Tom. Why would that be an improvement? --John (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

    I doubt that presenting further discussion about CT's in this article would make it better. I wonder how many people actually read all this data anyway...its a really long article and the theme strays quite a bit from the event itself. I have always argued that the article is simply too broad and so long as this event has any semblance of recentism to it, it won't make GA, much less FA. I still don't know why we need more than a link to the CT article where all the various CT's about this event are given more than their due. Why can't this article focus on the known facts and keep the superstitions elsewhere? Nevermind...I already know why.--MONGO 23:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

    • I didn't say anything about "presenting further discussion about CT's in this article". I am reminding you and the other regular editors of this article that the current regime has led to a poor article, which is bloated and disorganised. It gives extended coverage of some areas which are trivial and neglects other areas which are important. In order to improve it we would need a more welcoming atmosphere here in talk and less anger and passion about the whole process. Someone, for example, arguing to extend the coverage of alternative theories from one sentence to two is not an attack on the memory of the dead, or an insult to the honour of the United States, or anything like that. It is a reasonable proposal on how to develop quite a badly written article on a free online encyclopedia and should be treated as such. There are many other areas in this article that could really stand being improved, and this discussion so far is a good indicator of why this article has stayed so bad for so long. --John (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

      • Article is in sad state indeed. For example, the Immediate response part gives illusion of competence where there was none. Is this real world or exercise and so on... what you have there is not bias, but propaganda. How have you managed to omit the fact that people question 9/11 is beyond me though. Historycommons (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent and irresistible inclination of alltimers, oldtimers.., or however you call editors stuck in the loop here, to degrade people with opposing views is obvious. There are 60 pages of such discourse. No way to write decent entry without decorum. Historycommons (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John. The constant personal attacks by some of the regulars here on other editors who disagree with them is really holding back productive progress on this article. It's really disappointing. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Giving undue weight (equal coverage) to fringe theories is a violation of WP:NPOV. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: There must be some great statistic in all this... Ever thought to produce the cloud on monthly basis to see what words you folks use here the most? Do you have metric for the amount of time this article spent in lockdown? You know, years, months, days... also, how many times was this topic proposed and rejected? Historycommons (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: In fact, I'll make this an official challenge. Any editor, involved or not, who feels this article deserves to be improved, please, come help us improve it. Do you think a section is too bloated? Help us trim it down. Do you think a section is placed in an odd location? By all means, let's talk about moving it. Prove me wrong. Prove that the people who care to come here and edit this article aren't all focused on a small section. I believe in you. --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop sidetracking the conversation. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This 'conversation' has reached it's logical conclusion. I'm trying to get editors who actually care about the state of this article to help fix it. If ANY editor would like to edit something besides the same 5 or so sentences that have been debated to death, please step forward. We will welcome you with open arms at this point. --Tarage (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sources The following table is not intended to be a comprehensive list. Sources about conspiracy theories in general were omitted unless they were dedicated fully to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think a lot of editors here are pretty sick of me posting, so @A Quest For Knowledge: this is mostly for your benefit. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources that mention 9/11 conspiracy theories within the general context of 9/11, or that otherwise place significance on them
Title of source	Type of source	Publisher/journal	year	coverage	MIHOP/LIHOP?
The 9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition	reference book	ABC-CLIO	2011	significant mention in preface, and a several paragraph entry "Conspiracy Theories"	yes
September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide	reference book	ABC-CLIO	2010	several paragraph entry "Conspiracy Theories", and a spotlight essay on "9/11 Truth Movement"	yes
9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide	reference book	ABC-CLIO	2011	paragraph in Cultural section	yes
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition	reference book	SAGE	2011	9/11 Truth movement mentioned within entry "Terrorism in Popular Culture"	no
Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage, Volume 1	reference book	SAGE	2012	9/11 Truth movement mentioned within entry "September 11 Attacks (Aftermath)"	no
Remembering September 11, 2001: What We Know Now	grade 6-12 textbook	Enslow Publishers	2010	several paragraphs	yes
(Re)imagining Humane Global Governance	academic text	Routledge	2013	paragraph within a chapter about 9/11	yes
9/11 Culture	academic text	Wiley	2011	several pages, calling them a "major social force"	yes
The Impact of 9/11 on Psychology and Education	academic text	Palgrave Macmillan	2009	brief mention	yes
9/11 and the Literature of Terror	academic text	Oxford University Press	2011	several paragraphs in Introducion	MIHOP only
The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden	book	Random House	2011	full chapter	yes
The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11	book	Penguin	2009	mentioned in Introduction	no
The Contested Meaning of 9/11	peer-review journal	Duke University Press, Radical History	2011	three paragraphs	yes
The Never-ending Disaster: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and the Integration of Activist Documentary on Video Websites	peer-review journal	Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies	2013	dedicated article (focus on Loose Change)	no
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories	peer-review journal	NIH, Frontiers in psychology	2013	dedicated article (focus on internet comments)	no
‘How do the American people know…?’: embodying post-9/11 conspiracy discourse	peer-review journal	Springer, GeoJournal	2010	dedicated article	unable to access
Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies	peer-review journal	Wiley, Human Communication Research	2013	dedicated article (focus on innoculating against Loose Change)	unable to access
Literally countless numbers of news articles/programs	news media	National Geographic, History Channel, Popular Mechanics, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, C-SPAN, etc	2005-present	dedicated articles/programs	sometimes

• Comment @Smitty121981:,

Specifically, "9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide" By Tom Lansford. However, it's important to note that their paragraph matches the content of my proposal nearly identically (pg 34).
— User:Smitty121981 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The above is not a factual statement,

Proposed Text

Lansford Source

Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories.

"The 9/11 attacks produced a number of conspiracy theories. Most fall into one of two categories. The first is that the Bush administration or elements of the U.S. intelligence community were aware in advance of the attacks and allowed them to happen. The second group of conspiracy theorists contends that the WTC and the Pentagon were destroyed by explosives planted by government operatives. Both groups argue that the attacks were carried out in order to create public support for military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to expand or protect American economic or energy interests in the Middle East. Experts and scholars dismissed these ideas, and their proponents failed to produce compelling evidence."

It should be obvious that the substance of the proposed text is not even close to Lansford's, and is still problematic for reasons that have already been stated on this talk page many times—It does not use the best quality sources available, it misrepresents sources generally or by omission, and it cites conspiracy theorists directly (e.g., the C-SPAN source is just an interview with Richard Gage devoid of commentary or discussion of the facts) for no valid reason—It is quite simply in violation of several non-negotiable policies. The only way coverage of conspiracy theories in this article will ever be expanded is when an editor proposes text that is aligned with this site's policies and guidelines, and has consensus to add it. The current proposal does not satisfy the former and has no chance of achieving the latter. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

um... what is so different? Maybe I shouldn't have said "nearly identical" but considering I found this source after I wrote my proposal, it's pretty darn close! The structure in both my proposal and the quoted paragraph is: A) 9/11 conspiracy theories exist B) They are either MIHOP or LIHOP C) They are not taken seriously. The C-SPAN source is a good primary source example for the statement it sources, just like the Pop. Mech. article is a primary source example for the last sentence. The C-SPAN source is paired with a secondary source, just as the Pop. Mech. article is. But gee... you're not complaining about Pop. Mech... I wonder why? Both are used correctly - why didn't you quote the "several" policies they supposedly violate? "It does not use the best quality sources available" Really? Well then please, by all means, tell us which sources would be better! Smitty121981 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New Congressional inquiry section

I don't know why this hasn't been there before - except maybe that Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 wasn't a very good article. But since it's been in the news lately I got a bee in my bonnet last week and beefed it up considerably. Could use more work, but a pretty respectable article now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I assume that you meant "2002", not "2012".[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This text seems to rely excessively on primary sourced references and appears to SYNTH-sequence various statements without presenting secondary RS which contextualizes or establishes that these are the noteworthy facts about the inquiry. If this can't be sourced to secondary materials and reoriented to what secondary RS find most significant, I suggest we remove the section. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Quest: thanks for fixing.

@SPECIFICO (fancy your following me here!) As it happens I'm working on more refs for the main article right now that can be used here, but must take a break. You can surely give me a few hours before you delete it all? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to avoid taking out or adding significant amounts of material without discussion. In this case, if there's a disagreement it may be easier to work it out at Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: Carolmooredc has never edited this article before until now.[20] You have never edited this article before until now.[21] Previously, both of you clashed with one another in the Austrian economics topic space which led to community sanctions[22] and eventually an ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics where both of you presented evidence against one another[23][24] and both of you were sanctioned by ArbCom.[25][26] Now, by some miracle of coincidence, you just happen to show up here after Carolmooredc does? Even stranger, your first and only edit is....drum roll please...to revert Carolmooredc?[27] Are you stalking Carolmooredc edits? Can you give me one good reason why you shouldn't be sanctioned again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Again

Hi, I was just wondering why the section on the FBI investigation makes no mention of the well reported fact that several of the alleged hijackers on their list of nineteen later seemed to turn up alive and well. This was reported at the time, and then explained as identity theft or mistaken identity, which means that the real identities of the hijackers are still in doubt (lacking any official rectification of the original list). BartiDdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you see this John? Do you see what kind of editors we get here? It's never about anything OTHER than conspiracy theories. It's ALWAYS some jab trying to push CT into the article. I dare anyone to explain to me how this isn't trying to insert CT. You can't. --Tarage (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Explanation: Why are you talking about conspiracies? I'm not trying to insert any kind of theory into the article, just suggesting that the section on the FBI investigation is incomplete without mention of the cases of mistaken identity that were widely reported at the time in the reputable national media of several western nations, including the BBC. 189.129.72.68 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC) BartiDdu

Where is the reliable reference for that?--MONGO 22:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

I do note see in the international response section that indeed many in the Palestinian territory were celebrating. 199.255.44.5 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Richard Schwaninger

We can't add that unless you can find a reliable source for it. Even then , the America haters will say it's biased.--MONGO 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Snopes verified it back in 2008. It's also in our article on the reactions to the attacks, here. Does a mention belong in this article under "reactions"? I wouldn't object. Antandrus (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article is near the upper limit of WP:LENGTH. IOW, if we add too much to the article, we have to decide what we want to delete to make room for the new content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.100.186 (talk • contribs)