Talk:September 11 attacks

Daily Beast and Clarke's new allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

New book goes into possible Iranian and Saudi connections

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

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

FAC review improvments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Target of flight 93

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

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

Reference formatting

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

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

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

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

See also?

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

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

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

Discrepancy in number of victims identified

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

Why no 9\11 conspiracy section?

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

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

This is so ridiculous and violates NPOV imo. The US government emits a theory and various researchers emit opposing researches. Wikipedia is not a government entity and should not validate one view or the other but neutrally present both. And EVEN if the latter are ONLY mentioned as "conspiracy theories", they should at least be mentioned. There are dozens of polls where one third to half of respondents said they believe the US government was involved in 9/11. This is a belief held by a significant part of our planet and just hushing up that fact is (a) pretty weird and (b) not compatible with an encyclopedia's vocation. --boarders paradise (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

—Just for the record, please add me to the consensus! Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 117-119

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

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

Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are the hijackers included in the death toll?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/11 memorial link

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

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

Remove all the refs from the lede

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

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

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

mdy dates?

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

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

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

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

General thought on 9/11 pages

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

Ref format

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

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

Airport security

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

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

Current outstanding NPOV issues, with reliable sources

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Sorry, but I don't see any of these as real issues except perhaps the last. Regarding #1, it's against WP:NPOV to give undue weight to crank theories. Regarding 2-4, none of these items are directly related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They're all related on some tangental aspect and are better covered in other articles on Wikipedia. This is an article, not a book and we have to follow WP:LENGTH. Regarding 5, the response of the US Air Force is included in the article. I'm not sure what exactly the complaint is with this one. Is there some critical detail that the article needs, but is missing? I would agree that we should probably add something about the hijackers turning off the transponders, but I'm not sure how that's a POV issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 5 has been partly dealt with by now. There's a fair bit of dissent at the GAR from the contention that UNDUE demands not mentioning item 1 at all, and I think most reasonable sources and news media would mention something of items 2-4 in connection with the aftermath of the attacks. See the reliable sources presented. --John (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • How much do you want to bet than few-to-none of these sources are actually about the 9/11 terrorist attacks? I took a look at the first 3 sources you listed in item 2,[23][24][25] and none of them are about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, all 3 are about some tangental topic. I didn't check any of the other sources; I suspect more of the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm looking at "It is nearly 10 years since the 9/11 attacks, a horrific day that changed the world as well as America. In a country with a reverence for its constitution, debates about practical questions often end up as arguments about first principles. The attacks on America prompted fierce battles about how civilised societies should treat their enemies, and whether torture can ever be right." when I click the first link. Can you see the "9/11" and "the attacks on America" in the first and third sentences? It is your opinion that this is a "tangental topic" but clearly the BBC disagrees. No offense, but I go with the BBC over your opinion. And no, I don't want to bet; you'd only lose your money. --John (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • @John: I'm afraid that you seem to be confusing an article's topic with an article that references something. If you can find some articles about the 9/11 terrorst attacks that also include mention of these issues, that would carry some weight with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • That's an interesting and highly unusual local interpretation of FRINGE. I don't think the BBC count as a "tiny minority"; as the world's largest news site, I'd say that if they are able to discuss the conspiracy theories, we should be able to also. Of course, I understand you had your straw poll here, I've seen it. But certainly, if you wanted the article to improve, you'd definitely want to revisit that consensus. --John (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid that you lost me. Where did I say the BBC is a tiny minority? Is your comment addressed to me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I see, so you haven't read WP:UNDUE even though you are trying to use it in an argument. Go read it, then come back. --John (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
                • I've attempted to discuss this with you in good faith. However, if you are unable to address the issues raised here and are simply going to rely on cheapshot accusations that I haven't even read WP:UNDUE, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested text

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

Air defense

The United States Air Force launched F-15 and F-16 fighters, but the airliners had their transponders switched off and were impossible to identify in the time available.[26][Brookes] The fighters had authorization to shoot down the hijacked planes,[27] but it is not clear whether they would have intercepted Flight 93 in time, had the surviving passengers and crew not caused the hijackers to crash the aircraft short of its target.[Gero] The 9/11 Commission reported that NORAD and the FAA were "unprepared" for the tactics used in the attacks, and that the protocols they used were "unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen."(p18) They also criticized NORAD for giving incorrect information in its testimony to the Commission about its response to the attacks.(p34) [28]

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

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

This Washington Post interview [29] (published today, but most of the information was previously available) covers the confusion and absence of preparedness well: there were no armed aircraft near Washington, so the orders were to ram Flight 93 to bring it down. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That looks fine; I've made a few tweaks that should be checked. I may have been unwise to support this. We'll have to keep a close eye on it for slanted presentation and stuff getting tacked on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Book sources are inherently harder to check than web sources, true. On the other hand, I am sure you must have a public library near you where you can check these books by highly respected authors say what I claim they say, if you seriously doubt it. Book sources are often preferred to web ones for good and featured articles as they are usually inherently more encyclopedic; there are usually far fewer books than web articles about a given subject, but they tend to be more thoroughly peer-reviewed than the average article on the web. For historical subjects like this one, they therefore tend to be more valued, as Karanacs has said. --John (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say overall...I shall look for some book sourcing so I don't rely too much on news and the 9/11 Commission. But isn't just me that needs to check the books, its the readers....so the web sourcing just makes some things faster to cross reference is all. This article isn't going to be an FA near term anyway...it isn't stable enough.--MONGO 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The conspiracy theories have now been covered in the mainstream press, here is an article that covers it. This article was actually written by Sebastian Smith of Agence France-Press/Jiji Press and I saw a version of it in yesterday's Japan Times, p. 7. The article links the belief in conspiracy theories to the sociology of the impact of the attacks themselves. At the least, the FAQ #3 on this page needs to be changed, because it says that no reliable, mainstream sources have covered the conspiracy theories, which is no longer true. Cla68 (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There have long been reliable sources about the conspiracy theories. They're (hopefully) what our articles about the conspiracy theories are based on. Their inclusion or not on this page is a question of due weight. I think what the faq means is that no reliable sources suggest the conspiracy theories are true. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. FAQ#3 doesn't say that "no reliable, mainstream sources have covered the conspiracy theories." ScottyBerg (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with FAQ#3 is that whereas it does carefully distinguish between reliable sources "reporting on", "supporting/providing evidence for" or "advocating" conspiracy theories (which are each different), it fails to make the same distinctions for the content of this Wikipedia article. That is, it uses the question "Should the article provide evidence supporting conspiracy theories?" to justify a position that "there should not be mention of conspiracy theories in this article". That is woolly reasoning at best. Geometry guy 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The immediate reason they aren't in the article it that after extensive discussion and two RfCs, the consensus was that they didn't belong here. The FAQ asks and answers a different (if related) question. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The article I linked to gives more reason why the conspiracy theories should be included here in the Aftermath section. The article explains that the belief in the conspiracy theories, even though some of them defy rational logic, is part of the sociological and psychological reaction to the attacks and the US governments responses to them. Reading some of the comments above and below, it appears that a few regulars in this article view the proposal to include mention of conspiracy theories as some kind of battle between them and believers in the theories. I hope that isn't the case. We should be presenting a complete article on the topic, and the conspiracy theories are part of this topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be several newcomers to this debate, the conspiracy theories were muscled out removed agreed to be WP:UNDUE by several editors, most notably AQFK and MONGO. You need not bother wasting your typing, they WILL be removed the moment you take your eyes off the article. As I have clearly stated, I am in no way a supporter of 9/11 theories, but I believe they are important social shockwaves of the seismic event that was 9/11. However, this opinion has been vehemently denied and the article now stands as you see it now. Soxwon (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV pushers? What an utterly unencyclopedic and indeed retarded thing to say. I am trying to help clean up the toilet you and your friends have made of this article. If you can't show proper gratitude, go away and find some better sources or work on some of the grammar errors the article is riddled with, rather than come here and insult me. It is comments like yours that come across as more than "a tad immature". --John (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that Tarage, Tom and myself along with others DISAGREE with you! But I have never met Tarage, Tom or any of the others that routinely disagree with your constant POV pushing of fringe junk or your efforts to turn this article into a "toilet". If you want to stay an administrator, I suggest you adopt the behavior Tom (an admin) routinely shows in the face of your chronic and insufferable POV pushing.--MONGO 03:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings by responding to rudeness with rudeness. But, as you are fond of saying, "hello". When multiple neutral editors without previous involvement have highlighted the POV problem you and your cohort have created, and have commented on the toxic atmosphere you have created here on the talk page, it might be time to consider who the "POV-pushers" have been on this article. Me, I am just trying to help improve this article. I am not the only one to think that currently it isn't very good. Again, this page is to discuss improvements to the article; it might be best to direct any further allegations of POV-pushing or threats about loss of adminship to the proper places. This wouldn't be it, as you very well know. --John (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it far more likely that the less extreme editors either aren't aware of your POV pushing here or didn't have any problems with with the previous GA assessment. I don't know why you believe what you believe, but in trying to breach consensus here you are going against everything Wikipedia stands for. I would be ashamed of myself if I were you, but we both know you are blind to that concept. --Tarage (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The attacks were attacks UPON the US

For years the 1st sentence read the attacks were "upon the US". Today it says they were "against targets in New York City and the Washington, D.C. area". The attacks were coordinated attacks upon the entire country -- it is not the case that just 2 cities were the target. The attack on Pearl Harbor was not an attack upon a single city. 9/11 was an act of war against a nation, not some single idiot attacking two nearby locations (as in Stockholm), nor just 2 people in 2 planes. The Attack on Fort Sumter was not merely one of any number of attacks upon a fort, it had far more significance than that. Why has this change been made? --JimWae (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It was probably inadvertantly done...please restore as you see fit.--MONGO 21:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of conspiracy theories link

Why is the conspiracy theories article not allowed to be linked here? Surely it's acceptable to place it in the 'See also' section. It's not as if we're saying that the theories are correct, but they are relevant to the subject at hand. Richard BB 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Providing a see also link does not even say they are reasonable, just that there is more on the topic. If the CTs are not acknowledged, they cannot be debunked--JimWae (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There was an RfC here:[30], and I think a second one I can't find right now. They can't be debunked in any case, because they're not falsifiable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But even if there's not a full section for it, surely it doesn't hurt just having the link under the 'see also' section? Otherwise there's nothing that would lead anyone from this article to that one, to which it is directly related.

Personally, I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories -- just in case anyone thought I was trying to introduce PoV to this article -- but it just doesn't seem right to me that there's not even a single link from this page to that one. Richard BB 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If and how to address conspiracy theories is a contentious issue, unfortunately. Believe it or not, we discussed it for months and there were WP:RFCs about it. In the end, the consensus was against any sort of inclusion. To be honest, we spent so much time discussing it, I'd rather we wait a few months before revisiting it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I think it obvious that there should be link, I agree with AQFK. It's too soon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there should at least be a link to the conspiracy theories article in the See Also in this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone considering adding their opinion on whether or not CT's should be mentioned - please first read this extensive discussion and this extensive discussion (which resulted in the current consensus). If you have an argument that wasn't brought up there (doubtful but possible), feel free to add it here. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

One more for including the link, either in a see also section, or elsewhere. The conspiracy theories are prominent and notable, enough to deserve being linked. This New York Times article says "This consensus on Wikipedia certainly is not what an outsider might expect from a site that prides itself on its free expression views." It's embarrassing. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is embarrassing and it's what worried me a few days ago. I knew the page would attract a lot of viewers and be scrutinized over the weekend and thought the prose should have been cleaned up and a link to the conspiracy theories added at least to the see also section. Now the damage is done, but maybe a lesson learned. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Embarassment is in the eye of the beholder. While I'm generally in favor of minimal mention in the WP article, I see the NYT article as a a fairly straightforward discussion of Wikipedia's editorial processes that debunks the notion that WP is an indiscriminate collection of any and all theories, suppositions and Internet-generated chatter. What the article gets wrong is that Wikipedia isn't a site for free expression, and isn't supposed to be. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The NYTimes is entitled to their opinion...and as almost always, they've demonstrated once again that they don't understand our policies.MONGO 16:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Thus the so-called gatekeepers of the media world — prominent newspapers, television news programs, newsweeklies — have an unlikely ally in Wikipedia, which bills itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit." So we are much like the reliable sources we rely on. Seems pretty much okay to me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 for including a link. It's an embarassement to act like those beliefs don't exist and to try to suppress them. Wikipedia, you can try all you want, but it won't work. --boarders paradise (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's absurd that so called "conspiracy theories" are banned from this page JUST for being "conspiracy theories", when the "official story" is a conspiracy theory just as well since it asserts that some Muslims in an Afghan cave have allegedly CONSPIRED to plot the 9/11 attacks. This is by definition a conspiracy theory. Just look up Conspiracy_(crime) --boarders paradise (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done with a hefty dose of WP:IAR. The conspiracy theories are a part of major disasters. Just look at TWA 800 and Oklahoma City Bombing (a featured article), both of which discuss conspiracy theories in the prose. Therefore, I find it completely acceptable and appropriate to link to the conspiracy theories, and have thus added a link to them in the "see also section". N419BH 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And MONGO removed the link again. The justification is apparently "consensus". If opinions continue the way they have gone so far in this section, I'd say that consensus has changed. Let's get more opinions and see if consensus has changed. --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• That NYTimes article is a black eye for Wikipedia. I wasn't aware, after I made this comment a few months ago, that a few of you had gone so far as to insist on removing the link from the "See also" section. I think a few of you have, unfortunately, lost some perspective on this topic. Hopefully, this will be the last time something like this happens with this article. I am embarrased that this happened on the 10th anniversary of the event. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair I think it is embarrassing that someone would insist the link be reinstated on the anniversary. Fair enough wikipedia needs to provide a non-biased presentation of the article content and I agree that for completeness the conspiracy theories are notable themselves. But we shouldn't be embarrased that on the 10th anniversary some users decided that it was not fitting to include these unsubstatiated conspiracy theories in the article.Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Because we want to hide the truth. --Javalenok (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like the term conspiracy theories as it seems to imply a small group of crazy people on the fringe. Is all criticism of the 911 Commission's version of events to be dismissed as unworthy of historical record? Including that by former Commission members such as John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission, who said in 2009, “At some level of government, at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11?"

The deletion of this link is a highly retrograde step and indicative more of fear than boldness.Andrew Lowe Watson (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Conspiracy theories link

Should there be a link to the article 9/11 conspiracy theories in the See Also section of the article September 11 attacks? See the section immediately above for more opinions. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. We have an article, it's clearly related, and a noticeable number of people are interested in, and reliable sources write about, the conspiracy theories. That's the point of cross links. We have a link to Holocaust denial in the article on Holocaust, we have a link to Moon landing conspiracy theories in the article Moon landings, we should have a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the article on 9/11. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, one link in the see also section seems reasonable. LadyofShalott 19:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Qualified Yes: Put in the link if it will finally put to bed the issue of having any of the conspiracy crap in the actual article. If a person wants to read that garbage, then by all means direct them to it, but it should stay out of this one for reasons that have been gone over literally dozens of times (which is the consensus that MONGO is referring to - WP:FRINGE should not be in the main). So if it keeps conspiracy nuts from vandalizing this article, then by all means add it. If it is a first step in putting information here, then keep it out. SeanNovack (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Qualified Yes: For the same reasons SeanNovack said. Enough breaking consensus because of passive aggressive administrators. --Tarage (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning No: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. None of the articles mentioned above are at Featured article or even Good article status and shouldn't necessarily be used as examples of how to write a Wikipedia article. A better example is our article on Barack Obama which it does not mention or even link to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Our Obama article has undergone extensive peer-review for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria. I don't see how adding a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories is consistent with our policies on WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE and we have to follow these policies/guidelines if we ever want this article to reach FA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's also a biography, rather than an article about an event, like this one. If you would like to restrict your field of comparison to FAs:

  • William Shakespeare, which is a Featured article, does link to Shakespeare authorship question;
  • Anne Frank, which is a FA, links to Holocaust denial;
  • Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy which is a FA, links to Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories,
  • and possibly the most exact parallel, Oklahoma City bombing, which is a FA, does link to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. --GRuban (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban: thanks for providing those articles. This helps address some of my concerns. I'm still leaning towards exclusion on the grounds that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not legitimate scholarly viewpoints, but this at least make it a little more palatable to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban - A couple of corrections: The authorship question in William Shakespeare is a question of attribution, not "conspiracy theory". Anne Frank does not link to "holocaust denial", it links to holocaust deniers who claim the diary was forged. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The first point is a matter of opinion, but you are mistaken on the second point, it is a piped link to holocaust denial.--John (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a piped link that identifies holocaust deniers Robert Faurisson and Siegfried Verbeke as such, nothing more. This usage does not mean the article "links to Holocaust denial" in the context you're GRuban is using here. That should be obvious. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it should indeed be obvious to me, but it isn't, so can you explain your point to me? --John (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See above. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See where above? --John (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article on an American terrorist attack with alternative theories addressed in the prose: Oklahoma City Bombing. N419BH 06:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a particularly persuasive argument. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And you are, like so many people do, misrepresenting what WP:OTHERSTUFF stands for. It specifically says right there that "However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation" and that "using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." In this instance, an OTHERSTUFF argument is perfectly valid, because it shows that conspiracy theory articles, as shown by another article of practically the exact same type that is also a Featured article, should include a link and even prose on the conspiracy theories if they are important enough. It is obvious in this instance that the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are far more expansive and noted than practically any other conspiracy theory, barring Roswell and UFOs. Silverseren^C 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. this is the parent article and our readers should not have to search all over for this links - a link does not mean validation of the CT's - it simply links them in a neutral manner. Moxy (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Definitely Not having one just raise questions about the NPOV of the parent article. --JimWae (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment' There appear to be several newcomers to this debate, the conspiracy theories were muscled out removed agreed to be WP:UNDUE by several editors, most notably AQFK and MONGO. You need not bother wasting your typing, they WILL be removed the moment you take your eyes off the article. As I have clearly stated, I am in no way a supporter of 9/11 theories, but I believe they are important social shockwaves of the seismic event that was 9/11, so I would say yes. However, this opinion has been vehemently denied and the article now stands as you see it now. It will most likely shift to being that way again as soon as people are no longer watching it most likely. Soxwon (talk) 6:17 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Yes. In addition, there should be a short section on the theories using this article as a source, explaining that the irrational belief in conspiracy theories may be a psychological and sociological reaction to the trauma of the attacks and the government's controversial response to them. Also, the conspiracy theories article should be linked in the Sep 11 attacks topic navigation template. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, now a link in see also isn't enough, and some want a more prominent link, a sentence, maybe a sub-section. Someone above dismissed my concerns about expansion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. That material is directly related to this subject, and I see no valid reason to omit it. The quality of an article has no bearing on its importance. And given the breadth of the conspiracy phenomenon, a section here would also be warranted. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. I would go so far as to say that for balance, that wingnut crap deserves a sentence or two, given just how often reliable sources do mention the subject, and those one or two sentences should also treat the topic with the incredulity that reliable sources treat it with, i.e., WP:WEIGHT seems to me to both require a short treatment and that that treatment be negative.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Obviously, but preferably there should be a brief piece of referenced text as Cla68 suggests. This should not exceed one sentence (per WP:SEEALSO we would not need both) and should be on the conspiracy theories as defined narrowly by mainstream sources (controlled demolition, nanothermite etc). Too often in the bikers' bar atmosphere that prevails here, CT is used far more broadly as a discrediting pejorative relating to mainstream ideas such as linking the decade of war, "extraordinary rendition" or torture to events of 9/11. These are not "CTs" and should also be covered in the article, as they are in mainstream sources. --John (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly. The role of an encyclopedia is to provide readers with information, not hide it from them lest they be led astray. In this case the information is notable and relevant, and including a link is a first step in countering the prevalence and popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories by providing more readers with the best available information relating to them in reliable sources. Geometry guy 23:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  Note that the article is currently under Good article reassessment and this issue is a prominent topic: see (in particular the latter parts of) WP:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2. Geometry guy 01:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong yes -- It's ludicrous that there are absolutely no links between this article and the conspiracy theory article. Even if there are people declining to have a section about conspiracy theories on this article, it should at least be under the "see also" section. How are people even meant to know of the conspiracy theories through reading this article? This is meant to be an encyclopaedia; we must present all views neutrally. It just so happens that some people believe in conspiracy theories. The article should reflect that. Richard BB 23:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• No. A link is over-weighting, disproportionate to that given to the theories in reliable sources about the attacks, and already people are saying a link is not enough. If experience is any guide, adding a link will only lead to demands for a sentence, with links to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and 9/11 Truth movement. Then people will demand a paragraph to present "the context," and that will require links to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, and September 11 attacks opinion polls. And of course that will have to be briefly mentioned in the lead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I'm afraid that you're using a slippery slope argument, which could very well be perceived as a fallacy. This RfC is for, literally, just a link under the 'see also' section. Any disagreement with this view under the basis that it could lead to further emphasis seems in error to me. If you do not wish any further content to be added, then please, by all means, make a no vote when and if the respective RfCs for such things arise. As this is simply for a link under the 'see also' section, I can only try to further emphasise that it is our duty as editors of an encyclopaedia to ensure that all views are represented. It seems ridiculous to me that there isn't even a single link from this page to the next. What real harm could the link do under the 'see also' section? The truth is that there is a very definite conspiracy theory movement on the Internet and even outside (whether they have any valid points is another matter and not our duty to decide), and so a link to the article is more than relevant. Richard BB 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "a link is over-weighting, disproportionate to that given to the theories in reliable sources about the attacks, and already people are saying a link is not enough." As to the rest of my comment, with so many good editors actively following the article now, maybe expansion can be avoided. Time will tell. But my argument in that the link would be over-weighting, disproportionate to that given to the theories in reliable sources about the attacks. Many of the arguments for adding a link are variations on "I've seen a lot about this on the internet, so we should mention it." Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I said it because I read newspapers and watch television and have seen plenty of mentions of the conspiracy theories when talking about 9/11. You may be right that doing so is an attractive nuisance that will need active intervention to keep from mushrooming, but that's not why we do or do not include things in articles. I haven't been following the article and I bet you're constantly having to turn away proponents of the theories. That sucks indeed. You won't find someone more outside that camp than me, so when I say reliable sources, I don't mean "I've seen a lot about this on the internet." I mean that you go search various newspaper sites with a decent engine, even with something as specific as <truthers 9/11> to avoid false-positives but that will also miss any other mentions which don't use the exact word truthers, and even though most do not provide results for more than a few years, you find a fair number of newspaper articles on the conspiracy theories or mentioning them in the context of a broader story on some aspect of the attacks. That is why they warrant a mention here, if this article is to be comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources about the conspiracy theories - that's how, notionally, the wiki is able to support the dozen or so pages we have about them. But those sources aren't about the attacks, they're about the conspiracy theories. Literature about the attacks makes little if any mention of the conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not promising to do so, but I'd like to test this statement. If you're right you're right and I might change my mind about any sentence beyond a link being warranted, if indeed there aren't quite a few reliable sources about the attacks that also mention the conspiracies. My untested impression is that you're not correct but your post focuses the matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, this RfC is only about including a single link. Yes, some people have said a sentence should be included, but I think you are being a bit hyperbolic here. LadyofShalott 00:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Tom, to remove a section on the conspiracy theories is one thing, but to remove a link from the "See also" section looks like outright censorship. That NYTimes article is a black eye for Wikipedia. Are you sure that perhaps your feelings on the issue aren't a little strong and might be affecting your perspective? Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Times article says Wikipedia treats conspiracy theories the same why "prominent newspapers, television news programs, newsweeklies" treat them. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not good - its embarrassing for us all even though Jimbo does not think so Moxy (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It says we're a mainstream source comparable to other mainstream sources. Be embarrassed if you want, but I feel okay about it. A bit disappointed, maybe, that I've had no offers yet. Maybe Arthur's doing better. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• NO LINK...people google for information on the September 11 attacks and that is what they want to read...if they want to read about September 11 conspiracy theories then they'll google that. One editor on another page asked about how an article or book published in a scholarly manner would explain the event of the September 11 attacks to an audience that had never heard of the event before...the answer is that these scholars would print the facts and they would omit the fantasies.MONGO 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I would expect a scholarly book about 9/11 to explore the sociological and psychological impact of the event on the collective conscious by discussing the followers of conspiracy theories. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• That would be an acceptable RS...for the "Sociological and psychological impact of the event on the collective conscious" article, not this one. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At minimum, a 'See also' link belongs here. I agree that a section would be undue...and a sentence might or might not be depending on how and where it appears. Linking to the article doesn't somehow give official Wikipedia consent to the content...it just acknowledges a notable related topic. --Onorem♠Dil 03:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what I'm referring to, you are not going to keep anything in the article unless it is watched. MONGO and a AQFK (and Tom) wish to keep it scrubbed and will thwart any attempt to mention it. *shrugs* Soxwon (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been said before that I'm "a censoring, gatekeeping agent of disinformation who suppresses the truths about 9/11." Presumably the people speaking up for adding the link are familiar with the sources and have an interest in the page, so they will be following it so see fair play. It's not like they'd just drop in to !vote and then ignore the article, right? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of a RFC to let outside editors comment. AIRcorn (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

> people google for information on the September 11 attacks and that is what they want to read...

That is right. Links and references must be banned. They distract people by promoting not what they want to know. We decide what people want to know by creating articles for them.

> The answer is that these scholars would print the facts and they would omit the fantasies.

Step 1: label all versions, that not represent the interests of American establishment, as "conspiracies" and "fantasies". Second, scorn them. BTW, official version is not less conspiratorial. It says that crazy Arabs did a conspiracy. --Javalenok (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I see absolutely no reason why a link to a directly related article that exists because of this article's subject shouldn't be placed in the See Also section. The Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories were mentioned above, saying that the article wasn't linked in the Barack Obama See Also section. The reason for that in the Barack Obama article is actually exactly the opposite of this one, in that that article is liberally edited, so conspiracy articles such as that are not wanted because they are negative. Silverseren^C 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strongest possible Yes Clearly related and completely within precedent, see Oklahoma City Bombing where alternative theories are discussed in the actual prose. It's embarrassing and against policy that our uncensored encyclopedia has been censored in this manner. N419BH 05:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Would rather a short sentence in a suitable section acknowledging their existence, as long as it is presented in a way that shows that they are not taken seriously by the majority of academics. However, having it under see also is an improvement on the current status. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes I hate-hate-hate conspiracy drivel, but the best way to debunk it is to mention its existance for the interested folk, and then have it debunked in the conspiracy article later on. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• No - there should not be a link in the see also section. It should instead be linked to in the main article under a section, maybe in the investigations section or if not somewhere suitable, in which the link can be given some context. i.e. as with many many modern events conspiracy theories are rampant, although ultimately unconvincing given the overwhelming evidence and eyewitness accounts etc. This can be short but I don't think a plain link in the see also section gives it sufficient context. Polyamorph (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• No As per WP:UNDUE - "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject (the subject being 'September 11 attacks', not '911 Conspiracy theories')". That proportion is either zero or so close to zero as to be negligible in the extreme and unworthy of note. Shirtwaist ☎ 13:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. I've come here after reading the NYT article via the Signpost, and I agree that a comprehensive and neutral treatment of the issue must at least mention the fact that there are notable (in the Wikipedia sense) conspiracy theories that contest the generally accepted description of events. This requires, at least, a "see also" link, and probably also a brief sentence acknowledging the fact.  Sandstein  13:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. I've yet to see evidence that WP:ONEWAY is satisfied. For example, the 911 Commission Report did not mention conspiracy theories. That was in contrast with the Warren Report, which did. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes provided it is just one link to 9/11 conspiracy theories with no additional comment. See also links are provided for navigational reasons and don't imply we are giving any significant weight to the conspiracy theories. If anything by labelling them as another topic such a link could be interpreted as emphasising the difference between the mainstream and the fringe. I admit that people are going to support adding a section on the conspiracy theories but I don't see how adding a link is going to increase the number of such requests. I don't support discussion of conspiracy theories in the article text, as doing it properly to emphasise the social context and the mainstream response would likely require several paragraphs, which is too much. Hut 8.5 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Procedural comment This relates to a number of supports above for "just a See also link, provided there is no other comment" and similar. The purpose of "See also" is that "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one." If we add a link in "See also", we are acknowledging that at some point in the future when the article is in better shape there should be an encyclopedic sentence on the subject, with sources. I don't agree though with the slippery slope argument though, that this would inevitably lead to the section growing and growing. I strongly suggest restricting it to one sentence, to be agreed in the future once this process is finished (though it seems pretty clear which way it is headed at the moment). --John (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to content which would ideally be covered in an article is one purpose of a "see also" section, but it isn't the only one. The purpose of "see also sections is "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles." We are not acknowledging that content on conspiracy theories should be included in this article by inserting a link, only that the topic exists and that it is related to 9/11, and you should not attempt to use support for a link to argue that the article should directly address the topic. There are articles on mainstream subjects where fringe theories are permanently relegated to "see also" links, such as Holocaust and Holocaust denial/Criticism of Holocaust denial. Hut 8.5 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust article isn't a FA though, although it is currently in better shape than this one. This article, on the other hand, is featured and includes two well-referenced sentences on 9/11 conspiracy theories. --John (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not another article is an FA is frankly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the material in see also sections will ultimately be incorporated into the main article. In the case of 7 WTC the circumstances are slightly different. Hut 8.5 21:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, The censorship is important in order to defend the freedom and democracy. Just look at the Russian apartment bombings. Russian article brings the official version, highlights right away that is KGB version, that Putin is former KGB director and his pro-war political party gains popularity. That is not all! The article says that the events were a false flag operation! That is terrible? A half of the intro is dedicated to the "conspiracy theory"! Obviously, the difference with 9/11 description is that Putin is a bloody KGB dictator with totalitarian censorship. Only dictator regimes ignore civil society and allow it to have doubts in respected media. English and American society is more civilized. It must not mimic the Russian censorship. We must believe in official versions, present them as the only truth and doubtful facts. If we add a controversial link, not to speak turning the article into conspiracy in Russian, anti-liberal manner, an innocent person may accidentally click it and fall into a trap. It may read something and conclude that what you call "a conspiracy" is not that crazy, if not more plausible than the official "truth". This is inadmissible. Keep in mind that 9/11 is the most massively supported alternative story on the planet. Democracy is in danger! Americans are enduring for democracy! Do not let them, terrorists, percolate into our minds! The belief of masses in capitalist democracy must be clean of doubts. This means that we must keep complete silence about the movement wherever possible. Let's talk about cats! --Javalenok (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful⸮ --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world. If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill you. I see here that those who were not in line with liberal democracy are banned as conspiracy terrorists. I have forgotten to mention one more argument: USA official propaganda is known to say only truth to manipulate the public opinion for interventions. The absolute evidence of WMO, never found in Iraq, and Nurse Nayirah are the examples. Only dictators need to lie because they have no other means to control the society (in liberal countries, we must strictly follow the authority commands, and, thus, mind control is unnecessary). -- (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"What is life but a series of inspired follies? The difficulty is to find them to do. Never lose a chance: it doesn't come every day" It just came to mind after reading your...um..."joke". Thanks for the laugh. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Andrew Lowe Watson (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong no - In my numerous experiences on wikis and this own site, every time a nomination like this occurs, the addition of the content snowballs into more, more, and more additions. Simply put, the 'Truthers' will no doubt use a successful nomination to try and give higher credence for this discredited view. Aside from the above, also it should be noted that this is unneeded and rather POV, to me. Toa Nidhiki05 23:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, you're using a slippery slope argument. I don't think it is right to decline that a mere 'see also' link be denied on the basis that other things may be uploaded -- that seems like a fallacy to me. Should 'truthers' want extra content added to the article, such as a paragraph, then by all means vote no if RfCs happen for them in the future. For this particular incident, however, it is literally just one link. Oh, and not all of us are truthers ;) Richard BB 23:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a slippery slope argument, and is quite valid on my experience on all wikis. Any time something like this is done, the push is done to add more and more - and with new people supporting on the basis that 'we added that, so why not add this?'. Something may seem harmless, but on a major page like this, where you have to get an RfC to add a freaking link, it's a big deal.

And even non-Truthers can get trapped by this - I've had consistency advocates (and friends) on other sites supporting additions or articles they previously rejected on the 'we have that' basis. More people, truthers or not, will support more 'truther' conspiracy bits when this is added. Toa Nidhiki05 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a short section on the conspiracy theories in this article, but it was removed after extensive discussion on this talk page appeared to result in a consensus for the removal. Unfortunately, after that the slippery slope moved in the opposite direction, with a small group of editors advocating for then removing the link from the see also section, then edit warring to keep it removed, ultimately resulting in the embarrassing article in the NYTimes. In an article as high-profile as this one, that something like this could happen is a worrying indication that Wikipedia is not properly equipped for handling its "maintenance phase" of operation. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Something like...what? You seem to be arguing against consensus building and subsequent enforcing of same. I wonder if you will be equally upset about a possible new consensus, one you favor, for inclusion of CT's in "See also", and subsequent enforcement against improper edit warring of same. If the NYT demonstrates its lack of understanding of WP's workings, it's NYT's embarrassment, not ours. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the job of one our readers, i.e. our customers, to know Wikipedia's inner workings. They're supposed to read and be informed by the articles. If they find a glaring omission, such as an extensive article on conspiracy theories, but no link to it from the main Sept 11 article, then that's a valid concern that we, the providers, need to take into serious consideration. Something went seriously wrong with this article, and we need to figure out to keep it from happening again. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall reading a policy or guideline outlining our responsibility to the sensibilities of the New York Times writing staff. Though, I'd prefer the writer to chime in on our discussions if they so chose, instead of airing their personal displeasure with, and lack of understanding of, WP procedure in the press. Shirtwaist ☎ 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Stop criticizing Marxists. Be a Marxist! --Javalenok (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!! Wait...what? Shirtwaist ☎ 11:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But you're not worried that the "See Also" section of countless articles on wikipedia will be challenged based on the exclusion here? That won't be a slippery slope, rather an avalanche. DS Belgium (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - It's funny how sensitive people are to fringe sources. Even to debunk. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support This article is meant to provide an overview of the September 11 attacks, including their impact on society and politics. The scope of the article is not limited to a mere description of the actual events on that day itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read it, it is meant to promote the official agenda, US imperialism.--Javalenok (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hell, yes They are important enough inside the topic to merit a "see also" link. Readers should be exposed to all important facets of a topic when reading its "main" article, even if it's just one link so it's at least linked somewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Over the years since they first emerged I've been aware of these conspiracy theories in the sense of seeing them portrayed in the mainstream media in the UK, which is mainly mentions in television documentaries and some newspaper articles. The impression I've gained over time is that the theories have failed to gain a foothold and are now portrayed in the mainstream media as fringe, with more than adequate evidence to rebut the claims made.

  Indeed, a recent documentary I saw involved a group of youngish people (teens to early 20s) taken on a road trip around various sites and meeting various people, to see if this would change their pro-conspiracy theory views (some would have barely been 10 when the attacks took place). The documentary was clearly as much about the psychology of the people as about the theories themselves. It was fascinating to see how some people cling to their views regardless of the logical arguments and evidence presented to them, almost needing to not have their views disproved (though several did change their views after meeting eyewitnesses to the events and visiting the sites).

  In another decade or so, a whole new generation will have grown up who were not even born when the attacks took place. It is clear that the conspiracy theories will become nothing more than a quirky aside, much like the Apollo moon landing theories. I think what needs to happen at the present time is that the conspiracy theories need to be mentioned, but not as a single link, or a brief aside, but as a tightly written set of sentences stating: (1) That various conspiracy theories exist (though only a single link to a main article, absolutely no expansion beyond that); (2) That they lack any credibility (this point has to be made very strongly); (3) That increasingly the study is of them as a sociologial and psychological phenomenon, not as a serious object of study attempting to prove or disprove them. And then leave the rest to the subarticles and insist that nothing more be added here.

  My reasoning for this is as follows: saying nothing is a non-starter as that is just avoiding the issue, but if you do say something then it has to be firm and clear, not an unexplained link or a false attempt at 'balance', but rather a clear statement that the conspiracy theories have no credibility. There are plenty of reliable sources that would adequately support a statement to that effect and that is all that is needed here. One final point, some may fear that mentioning the conspiracy theories at all (even to say they have no credibility) will give them undue prominence or credibility. But that's not how article writing works. Mentioning something doesn't automatically make it credible. It is how you mention it or not mention it that matters. In this case, ironically, failing to mention the conspiracy theories gives them credence (that is the nature of conspiracy theories). Better by far to not ignore the elephant in the room, but to mention them and dismiss them in the same sentence. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Largely agree, however statements (or sentiments) like "That they lack any credibility" would have to be supported in this article with referencing. It would be okay to put the link in the "See also" section, or (if felt necessary) to write something like "There are theories of conspiracy surround the events of 9/11.", however anything further would need to be supported. The problem with trying to support such statements is that the process risks spiralling out of control. That's why this RfC is on the link's inclusion in the "See also" section—and discussion should remain focussed on that aspect. GFHandel ♬  23:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The reason I have only commented so far and not supported a bare link in 'See also' is that I largely agree with Overjive below, who says "The Conspiracy article introduction gives the impression that the theories have merit. Unless we prominently address the relative merit, we will add to the cultural factors that spread such unsupported theories". That is why I think a link without any accompanying text is not good enough. It needs to be said, plainly and clearly, in both this article and that article that the theories have no merit (though some are more obviously rebutted than others). That is an argument for changes to the conspiracy theory article(s), but it also illustrates that you can't isolate a discussion like this from discussion of other aspects. To go a little further, the 7/7 attacks in London have a conspiracy 'article' as well, but that is a redirect to a section of that article. That solution works well there, but doesn't work here for size and coverage reasons.

      I also, to make it clear, agree with RxS that this is "a fading subject and is less relevant now than ever" (the conspiracy theories, not the attacks themselves). I said above that in another ten years a new generation will have grown up for which this is all just history, and I think it will be even clearer then how much the whole subtopic of conspiracy theories will have faded by then (other than being case studies in sociology and psychology courses), and by that time I expect the conspiracy articles will have reduced in size as time gives more perspective to all this. However, despite all that, I agree with those who say that not mentioning this at all in this article does a dis-service to our readers. Rather than keep the two topics at arm's length from each other, the issue needs to be confronted head-on and dealt with. The WP:ONEWAY argument is more subtle. I'll address that elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

      • That's a compelling argument, but I don't think it's practical. If we're going to use summary style, we pretty much have to summarize 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article will necessarily be the product of whoever wants to work on it. I did in the past, don't plan to again, and can't in good conscience ask anyone else to do so. I'm afraid it's nothing, a link, or a summary of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Summary style does not mean every link or topic mentioned has to be summarised or even mentioned in any detail. At the end of the day, if you (eventually, not in this discussion) get a consensus of editors here saying that a short and firm dismissal of the conspiracy theories is needed here to maintain comprehensiveness and NPOV, then people are going to wonder why some editors are resisting that. The claim that it is WP:UNDUE will start to ring hollow when you are arguing against inclusion of a dismissal of the conspiracy theories, and it will start to seem that you are arguing to omit any link because you want the topics to be kept apart and to develop independently. Well, no. Both articles need to meet Wikipedia's policies and standards, and both articles need to clearly state the obvious. You seem rather to be arguing for allowing editors to pick one or the other to edit. That is the anti-thesis of what Wikipedia is about. I would question whether any editor who feels unable to work on the conspiracy theories article can be objective enough to work on the main article. What is needed here is absolutely editors willing and able to work on both articles. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC) While I'm here, I should say that I was pointed to the GAR page by Geometry guy, and I largely agree with what he is saying there, particularly the points towards the end of that review as of this timestamp.
          • • I'm not unable to spend Saturday night in the bus station with a drunken monomaniac, just unwilling. Question my objectivity if you want, but I feel like I've given all the time I owe the project to conspiracy theories in general. You take a turn if you like. And that isn't snark; I'd love to see you and others actively editing the ct pages, and I hope you'll work on this page too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support a link in the See Also section, the fact that some people have put forward conspiracy theories is a verifiable fact, I have also seen the sort of television documentaries Carcharoth talks about and as per WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" so that means we should have a link here. Mtking ^(edits) 02:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Ridiculous though I think these theories are, they are definitely a subset of the 9/11 topic as very many people believe them. In addition, it's only a link, not an endorsement. Ericoides (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment After reading numerous qualifications accompanying the opinions of supporters - here and elsewhere - of inclusion of mention of CT's in the article, such as "Ridiculous though I think these theories are...", "I hate-hate-hate conspiracy drivel", and "that wingnut crap", I have to assume most if not all authors of RS on the 911 attacks hold similar sentiments towards CTs, which is probably why none of them ever seem to mention CTs in their works. I guess they leave all that drivel to the authors of CT books and websites. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually many many authors do talk about this despite what other have said to the contrary - 28 and 34 Random House - Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding.Moxy (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be that people – myself included – are giving accompanying qualifications because they feel that some might make the assumption that it was only conspiracy theorists who were pushing for the inclusion of a link. Ericoides (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood, Ericoides. I certainly didn't mean to cast any aspersions on those making the comments, just commenting on the fact that those sentiments are very widely shared. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Moxy - Is about one page of somewhat anecdotal text in a 216 page book considered "connecting the topics in a serious and prominent way" as per WP:ONEWAY? I don't think so. IMO, that would clearly fall below the threshold of inclusion. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some problems with the current text at WP:ONEWAY. I had thought this was a section of Wikipedia:Linking, but the shortcut has been appropriated by WP:FRINGE instead. Anyway, there is an unwritten assumption there that inclusion of a fringe link give credence to the fringe topic. That is utterly wrong. It is not the link that gives a topic credence, but what the accompanying text with the link says. The current text says: "If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether." Consider instead this sentence: "If rebutting a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether." The point being that it should be perfectly acceptable to mention and link a fringe topic to rebut the claims it makes (as long as you source that rebuttal). You shouldn't have to leave it to that article for the fringe topic to be rebutted. It goes back to what I was saying. It is not the link itself that is the problem, but what is said or not said with the text accompanying link. For anything remotely controversial, just a bare link in see also (or even no link at all) is abrogating the responsibility of the editors of this article to accurately inform the readers of this article that a fringe topic gets lots of coverage but has no credibility. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, Carcharoth. But how would your version of the text change the subtext in WP:ONEWAY that says any mention of fringe topics - including links - could give undue weight to fringe topics? Is there a significant difference in the average reader's mind between "mentioning" CTs and "rebutting" them? Or would the average reader see a link to 911 CTs in an article on the 911 attacks and say "The people who wrote this article must think the 911 attacks and 911 CTs are definitely connected somehow, otherwise they wouldn't put the link in there", whether or not they were rebutted in the linked article? Shirtwaist ☎ 05:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - like it or not, wacky things, like these conspiracy theories are notable and the fact that they exist should be mentioned (albeit very very briefly). I'm also not convinced by any of the slippery slopes arguments presented above - though that is a concern to be kept in mind in the future. Volunteer Marek  12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry No. First, you can't keep asking the same question hoping to get a different result. Secondly, it's a fading subject and is less relevant now than ever. RxS (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• No The Conspiracy article introduction gives the impression that the theories have merit. Unless we prominently address the relative merit, we will add to the cultural factors that spread such unsupported theories. Overjive (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes a link is appropriate.Teapeat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
• Yes. Wikipedia has considered the inclusion of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article notable (including 299 Note references), so it is incredulous that this article shouldn't include a link to that article—even if that link is just in the "See also" section. To not inform our readers of the existence of the conspiracy page is a disservice as it takes away choice (and smacks of censorship). GFHandel ♬  20:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes To not have a link from the main article to a very notable article 100% based on the events in the main article is incompetence. Public awareness (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm non-committal at this stage, so I'll make this comment - on one hand, a link could be WP:UNDUE. On the other, it is clearly related and notable. As much as I hate the conspiracy theories, I might be able to say yes for inclusion on the condition that none of the theories are mentioned, not even in passing, in the body of the article. But I'm not committing as of right now. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Minimal inclusion As someone who has spent a great deal of time dealing with Truthers of all kinds from not-unreasonable "there are things we don't understand about 9/11" to "WTC was nuked!", I come to the reluctant conclusion that the article should state, briefly and unequivocally, what the current state of thought is on conspiracy theories in scholarly and mainstream press references. Something like "The September 11 attacks have been the subject of a variety of conspiracy theories, suggesting the involvement of parties other than the 19 hijackers and their backers. These theories have been given no credence in serious scholarship on the events of 9/11." This can be referenced (I've provided links to similar discussions in the Guardian among others last week in sections farther up the page) and establishes appropriate weight and reliable sourcing. 9/11 conspiracy theories have gained no traction in mainstream sources, and we should say so. As one of the few architects on WP, I have spent much time explaining how utterly and provably wrong many Truther theories are from the points of view of fire protection engineering, materials science, building codes, building construction and structural design principals, completely apart from the issues of the posited existence of a massive conspiracy with extensive advance preparation. The theorists have no credibility in the architecture/engineering community, and their pressure group is firmly on the fringe. The state of Truther "scholarship" amounts to little more than a rumor mill and random theorizing, while much less sensational, but far more important and real issues concerning the level of preparedness of the US before 9/11 are lost in the noise. We should state briefly and plainly that the theories exist, but have no credibility in scholarly sources. Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's one possible approach. I'm against inclusion because of WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." That's a much higher standard than simply "mentioned in reliable sources." The Warren Report discussed and dismissed conspiracy theories, probably because they were so widely embraced by the public. The 911 Commission did not, probably for the reasons you state. To me, that's a barrier that hasn't been surmounted. There have been many articles in reliable sources, such as a major effort in Popular Mechanics, but the conspiracy theories are too fatuous to have been connected by reliable sources in a prominent way. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:September 11#Requested move about whether to make "September 11" redirect to this article on the terrorist attacks. Input is welcome. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)