Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Notability of the article's subject

The notability of the article's subject, the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is being established by:

• multiple international reports in reliable sources on the activities and statements of the group;
• multiple citations of the statements of Richard Gage, the leader of the organization, in reports of major U.S. newspapers on the investigations into the collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center;
• multiple references to the group in reports on conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks in reliable sources;
• a television broadcast of Telecinco, a leading Spanish private TV company, with an accompanying article that specifically reports on a presentation of the group's leader, Richard Gage, in November 2008.

  Cs32en  11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability guideline for organizations

The notability guideline for organizations and companies contains the following criteria:

1. "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." — All the sources are secondary sources. "Significant coverage" is defined in more detail below.
2. "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." — All sources that establish the notability are reliable and independent of the subject.
3. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." — Some of the sources given in the article are covering the article's subject in a substantial way, and there are multiple independent sources anyway.
4. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." — None of the sources that are given in the article treat the article's subject in a trivial or incidental way. The sources refer to the subject of the article because it is pertinent to the content of the article, or because it is the primary reason why the article was written.
5. "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." — Reliable secondary sources from different countries (USA, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom) are given in the article.
6. "The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works [...] except for the following: Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." — One secondary source actually quotes (not re-prints) a press release published by the article's subject. The information contained in that quote could be easily sourced from other reliable secondary sources.
7. "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." — While some of the sources report on the time of a public presentation organized in their respective city or country, these are not "meetings", and these secondary sources contain much more information on the article's subject, so they do not fall under this category.
8. "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." — The activities of the article's subject, as evidenced by reliable secondary sources, are on a national scale in the United States, and include international activities as well.

Unless there is some mistake in the overview above (and I don't think there is), the subject of the article meets all of the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Further considerations, from the general notability guideline, are:

• "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." — Some of the secondary sources report on the article's subject exclusively, although this is not a necessary condition for establishing notability.
• "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." — There is no particular reason not to have an article on this article's subject, and the general aim of Wikipedia is to have articles on all subjects for which notability can be determined by evidence from reliable sources.

  Cs32en  18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stand-alone article

I suggest to treat this article as a stand-alone article; as a consequence, it must follow all aspects of established Wikipedia policies, especially WP:UNDUE.  Cs32en  11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

911ct template

Problem with that: In a CBS interview, which is archived online, Gage emphasizes that he is NOT a "conspiracy theorist," and refuses to speculate at all about who was behind the controlled demolition he documents. So, the CT template is inappropriate. Wowest (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As there is no other template that could be used and that would fulfill the same function, I strongly think that this template needs to be included here. While I do think that the name of the template is inappropriate, I also think that the name and content of the template should be discussed at the talk page there. I also think that it is necessary to report on the characterization and self-characterization of the organization in the appropriate place in the article. However, I am probably working on other aspects of the article in the next few days. Anyway, please add relevant content to the article!  Cs32en  13:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate notability

Almost all of your sources for notability are other truther organizations, even those who think this one is totally wrong. I still don't see adequate independent sourcing. Nor do I see too much information that wouldn't fit in the section of the 9/11 Truth movement article. But I'm willing to give you more time.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arthur — Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "other truther organizations". None of the sources in the article (as of this moment) is a "truther" source. We do not need a reliable source that explicitly says that a topic is notable. We need reliable sources that have more than a casual reference to the subject. The argument that the content might be also treated as a sub-article of another article is not relevant; this argument would only become relevant if it would be found that the subject would not be notable enough for having a separate article. The determination of whether it is notable enough must be made without reference to possible alternative ways to present the content on Wikipedia.  Cs32en  17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I'm really confused by your comment. None of the sources that are in the article says explicitly that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is notable. Please tell me which sources you are referring to.  Cs32en  17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder about the notability of this article's subject as well. The first 2 cites aren't even to English sources. The third cite which is in English is an opinion piece and doesn't even mention this organization at all. The fourth cite doesn't mention this organization either. The fifth cite contains only one sentence about this organization. The sixth cite has only two sentences about this organization. The seventh cite (which is fairly short) is only one that actually is about this organization and for some strange reason is apparently in the Sports section of the site. I thought that in order to be notable, it has to receive significant coverage that address the subject directly in detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Richard Gage (leader of the organization) is a redirect to this page, so that the reports about him of course contribute to the notability of the article's topic. WP:BLP1E has some more info on why an article on the event (or in this case, the organization) is preferable. If it really bothers you that the one source is in the sports section, I'll replace that source. The fact that is supported by this source is not essential for the notability of the article's subject and can be easily sourced to other reliable sources. Your complaint that the first cites are not from English sources is not really to the point, because international coverage actually indicates more, not less notability of the subject.  Cs32en  18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, this organization has received very little coverage from mainstream media in the English world. If English reliable sources are so plentiful, why are we resorting to foreign language sources, sports sections and articles that do not address the subject directly in detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is a newspaper that belongs to Canwest Publishing Inc., one of Canada's largest international media companies. There is a malfunction in the website, so you can get the article as a "cars" article, a "homes" article, a "culture" article etc. Right now, it's in the "technology" section.  Cs32en  02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have one small article on this organization. How is that significant coverage? (BTW, I've checked every national newspaper of record of every English-speaking country in the world, and did not find any articles on this organization.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This article barely discusses Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It is all about Richard Gage and the theories. The group is mentioned only in passing in connection with Richard Gage in sources. There is no significant coverage, and if better coverage and discussion doesn't appear sharpish, this is going to AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we should rather have an article on Richard Gage then?  Cs32en  00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I make no such suggestion. Judging this article entirely on its own, it does not focus on its subject, and it does not demonstrate notability or use reliable sources that give indepth coverage of the organisation. Whether Richard Gage should be covered by an article is an entirely different matter. Fences and windows (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the sources refer to Richard Gage as the leader of the organization and are stating that he leads, or represents, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth somewhere in their reports; they regard his statements as representative of the group. While media often attribute statements from individuals more freely to their respective organizations ("The Democrats said X, the Republicans said Y."), we need to present the evidence from reliable sources as accurately as possible.  Cs32en  14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you find any more sources about this organization or is it still the one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is there any substantial discussion of the organisation? What I've seen either doesn't mention it at all, or simply says Gate is such and such of the organisation, but doesn't actually discuss the organisation. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I'm setting up this chapter so that we can discuss on possible improvements with regard to the neutral presentation of the article's subject.  Cs32en  23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some material in the article that is good. We just need to balance it. The article should present all substantial points of view by relative predominance. For instance, the overwhelming view in reliable sources is that this is a fringe group promoting a conspiracy theory. That needs to be included right at the start of the article so readers are not misled to thinking something else. The group claims X members. We need that membership to be verified by a reliable source, not the group's own website. Groups tend to inflate their own importance. We have to avoid doing that. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear J.E. Hochman:

Thanks for sharing that with us! Please provide a URL for a "reliable source" which states that AE922truth is a "fringe group promoting a conspiracy theory." Please note that websites associated with the Hearst Corporation or the executive branch of the U.S. government cannot POSSIBLY be considered reliable sources for this particular topic. Neither, of course, are sites associated with the conspiracy denial movement. Thanking you in advance for your editorial cooperation, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Wowest (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We may use "conspiracy theory" as an attribute for the claims that the group makes, with an appropriate source. In order to say directly that the group would advocate conspiracy theories, we would need a secondary source that explicitly says this, and would use this as their primary way of identifying the group.

One of the two major German TV channels, ZDF, ran a report on the collapse of 7 WTC on Sep. 11, 2008, at 8.15 pm. Its title is "The secret of the third tower. Demolition or collapse as a result of fire?" There is a lengthy text on the page where you can find the video, and the word "conspiracy" is only used once in this text, as a reference to the alleged conspirators that would have blown up the buildings. The text also does not say "Richard Gage, the conspiracy theorist", but "Richard Gage, the prominent architect". [1]

We may not always manage to avoid systemic bias, but we can strive not to promote it. It would be a different matter, if U.S. sources would contradict what the Spanish TV channel Telecinco reports, but they are not contradicting it; although they do not report everything that Telecinco reports.  Cs32en  00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you find US sources, or at least English sources. A lot gets lost in translation and across different cultures. I'd think the most reliable sources on doings in the United States would be located in the United States, or at least in the English speaking world. Something happens in the US. The reporter translates into Spanish. We then read the report and translate back into English. All this translating leads to an inevitable loss of fidelity. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently not translating stuff that would be difficult to translate. For example if the German words say "der prominente Architekt Richard Gage", it's not difficult to translate this into "Richard Gage, the prominent architect". Some parts of the Telecinco report are more difficult, and I have not translated them; this should better be left to a native Spanish speaker (I assume there are more Spanish speaking people in the U.S. than in Germany.)

The language barrier between English and most European languages is quite low, and many Spanish, French, German, Dutch etc. people can speak English rather fluently. So I doubt that there would be any possible source of misunderstanding due to the language that would significantly contribute to the risk that any journalist, whether inside or outside the U.S., can screw things up, sometimes. If a press agency gets a press release, and shortens the content, and a newspaper then selectively quotes from the press agency report, there are far more sources of possible errors than when something is translated from Spanish to English or the other way round.

Also, Telecinco has actually spoken with Richard Gage, because he was in Madrid at the time (see the video [2] on the page).  Cs32en  00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fringe views

We must not cherry pick a couple of dissenters in the engineering community and give their WP:FRINGE views excessive prominence in this article. Wikipedia is not covering every experts' opinion on every topic. We represent the main and minority views, and we disregard the fringe views. In case of a notable fringe view, we cover the view by reporting what people think about it. What the fringe members thinks about the fringe view is not part of our coverage. The article on Bigfoot does not include the POV of Bigfoot believers. Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The viewpoint that you are expressing here is not consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.  Cs32en  20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this article about?

From the title, this article should be about the organisation, its leaders, its activities etc. Instead it is about Richard Gage and his arguments about 911 (which are already covered elsewhere I believe). Even the membership section of the article only lists supporters. The article should say something about the A&E's organisation, leadership, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I question the notability of this organization independent of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general. In any case, it shouldn't continue to be a soapbox/linkfarm for the group. We don't need yet another pov fork. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we nominate it for deletion? I'm a relatively new editor and am unfamaliar with the process so I would be uncomfortable doing it myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a consensus to redirect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At the present time, Richard Gage redirects to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Perhaps that should be reversed? If so, WP:RM is the appropriate venue for discussion. If the relevant information were to be moved back into 9/11 Truth movement, that would be a different discussion. I don't think it fits that well in 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We might want to avoid a biography - I can't see that being anything but a coatrack. Merging and redirecting to 9/11 Truth Movement might be best. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes are not valid grounds for nominating for deletion or merges. Are you disputing that the subject of the article is notable? Unomi (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote just above, "I question the notability of this organization independent of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general." I don't plan to nominate for deletion at this point. There is no such thing as a "Request for Merge" - merging is an editorial decision made by consensus. I think the material in this article that's about the organization belongs in 9/11 Truth movement. The material about the conspiracy theory belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it isn't already well represented there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is a WP:COATRACK for discussions of the controlled demolition conspiracy theories, and there are few if any sources discussing this organisation in any detail. I'd support a merge to 9/11 Truth movement#Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Fences and windows (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a WP:COATRACK. Only statements of the group, and of its representatives, insofar as they represent the group, are covered in the article, and statements about the group and about the theories advocated by the group from notable sources (U.S. government, academic experts). There is some background information, i.e. that NIST conducted an investigation of the collapse of the WTC, but this needs to be strictly limited to what is necessary for the reader to understand the context. If any statements are added to the article that are not related to the subject, these should be removed.  Cs32en  18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's actually standard practice on Wikipedia to cover the topics and organizations that advocate them separately. See Right to keep and bear arms and National Rifle Association, or Animal rights and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Please point out specific parts of the article that may not follow WP:NPOV, so that they can be corrected.  Cs32en  18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this organization isn't notable like PETA is. Did you find any sources that are actually about this topic or are you still stuck at the one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK says the following: "The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack—the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." I think that this article accurately reports on its subject. I have already documented why the subject of the article is notable, according to Wikipedia policy, in Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#Notability of the article's subject.  Cs32en  21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have already documented why the subject of the article is notable", yes you did and since then several editors (Arthur Rubin, Dougweller, Tom Harrison, Fences and windows and me) have questioned the article's notability. The last I checked, you only had one English language WP:RS that even covered this topic and it was a pretty short article at that. Since you're citing articles that are not about this organization, can you please tell us which articles you've found that actually cover this organization in detail? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Detailed articles on a subject are not necessary to establish notability, if there are multiple independent sources. See also Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#Notability guideline for organizations.  Cs32en  00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That was the third or fourth time that I've asked you if you've found any WP:RS that actually cover this organization in detail. Each time, you've failed to answer the question. Why is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the sentence on the opinion of the scientific community to the Advocacy section. This is context for the article, not criticism. (It's not the scientific community on one side, and AE911Truth on the other.) Popular Mechanics and Prof. Stuart Vyse are criticizing controlled demolition theories in general, not AE911Truth in particular. I have moved that to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Notable criticism of AE911Truth can of course be included in the article.  Cs32en  00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merging

The reliable sources that mention the organization do so in passing, and as one of the Truther groups. Separating it out and presenting the group's views at length, and as an alternative to the mainstream view, is a distortion. I think we should merge and redirect to 9/11 Truth Movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do not mention the organization just "in passing". They include statements from the source as representative of the viewpoints of the critics of the government's and the mainstream's interpretation of the September 11 attacks. These are substantial parts of the respective articles in the reliable sources. In some cases (Reuters report, Telecinco, National Post), the group or Richard Gage (which redirects here) is the main topic of the respective media item. Remember that WP:N says that detailed coverage is not necessary if there are multiple reliable sources.  Cs32en  16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Cs32en. There are a number of sources which deal exclusively with AE, notability is certainly met, independent of other 'truther' groups. While Gage might be mentioned in a number of the articles that is hardly surprising as he seems to be the spokesman and a frequent speaker at presentations. Here are a couple sources establishing notability:

Yes it is true that there are other truther organizations, there is also otherstuff, that does not mean they should all be merged. I also hope that you will take care to not remove sources, and be mindful of the sources you use when editing the article. Yes verbal, using an opinion piece regarding a bbc documentary that touches on AE is perhaps not suitable for the lede. Especially if you take a look at the other opinion pieces that particular author has written. I trust that you will remove it or find a better source to back it up. To some of the arguments below

• Much of what is here is what they say about themselves, and what they're quoted as saying about themselves. False, there is plenty to write about their activities, publications and yes, views. There is no reason to merge.
• Wikipedia does not have articles on all of the groups that support the official story, so this isn't needed. Not significant. Other stuff doesn't exist, so logical fallacy. .
• The sources do not cover this organisation in any level of detail, making it difficult to verify information about it and making notability very questionable. There are plenty of sources on their activities, views and at least one prominent member. Notability is established. Unomi (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this organization define or indentify itself as part of 'truth movement'? What is another 'truther group', does such construct exist outside of Wikipedia mindset? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger for the reasons given by Tom. This article is not supposed to be about Gage, irrespective of where his name redirects. Verbal chat 16:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. This organization is not notable. Any content worth saving should be moved to the 9/11 Truth movement article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I retract my previous opinion. I'm still undecided, but after reading WP:NEO, I'm not so sure we should even have an article on 9/11 Truth Movement because it is a neologism. I'm open to other editor's opinions, but at this point I'm leaning towards:

• a) Deletion of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth because it fails notability
• b) Deletion of 9/11 Truth Movement because it violates neologism
• c) Modify all prose that uses the terms "9/11 Truth movement" and "9/11 denial" for all articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are both neologisms that do not appear in major dictionaries such as Mirriam-Webster or Ofxord. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As you write on your homepage that you are a professional software developer, I'll try to explain to you the neologism issue in these terms: The term neologism, insofar as it is relevant for Wikipedia policy, refers to classes, not objects. However, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a term that describes only this organization, i.e. an object, not a class. In these cases, the issue is notability, not whether it's a neologism.  Cs32en  04:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start with deleting all instances of 'AIDS Denialism', Holocaust Denialism and undoubtedly countless others. In fact 'denialism' is a neologism in and of itself. As you will also see in WP:NEO there are cases where neologisms are allowed when there are sources that describe what the term covers. Unomi (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I already stated above, the issue with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is notability which it fails and thus should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

9 separate sources have been proviceded that establish notability, continuing to claim that it fails notability without addressing issues you may have with the sources borders on the tendentious and is getting clsoe to be a case of I didn't hear that.

Support merger. The sources do not cover this organisation in any level of detail, making it difficult to verify information about it and making notability very questionable. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. Wikipedia does not have articles on all of the groups that support the official story, so this isn't needed. Not significant. --Tarage (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Every statement in the article actually is supported by an appropriate source, and other reliable sources are actually available. These have been removed with statements such as "English sources, please!" This is not how we can improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and it is not a valid justification for the proposed merge. The subject of the article is notable, whether or not we would include the few statements sourced to the organization itself.  Cs32en  22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

14 independent reliable sources have been removed from the article, including the following:

• Spanish national TV company Telecinco: "Un arquitecto estadounidense presenta en Madrid su versión alternativa al 11-S". Telecinco. Nov. 8, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (Translation: "An architect from the United States presents his alternative version of September 11 in Madrid.")
• German national TV station ZDF: Röckerath, Christoph. "Das Geheimnis des dritten Turms". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. Retrieved May 25, 2009. Ist World Trade Center 7 wirklich die "Smoking Gun" des 11. September, der Beweis, das etwas "faul" ist, wie es der prominente Architekt Richard Gage [...] formulierte? (Translation: "Is World Trade Center 7 really the "smoking gun" of September 11, as Richard Gage, the prominent architect, says?")
• Press agency Reuters: Reuters (Nov. 8, 2008). "Arquitectos estadounidenses piden a Obama que reabra la investigación sobre el 11-S". Retrieved May 27, 2009. Aseguran que las Torres Gemelas no fueron derribadas por el choque de los aviones. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help) (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")
• National Post, a major Canadian newspaper: Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
• La Stampa, a major Italian newspaper: Molinari, Maurizio (July 6, 2009). "Il crollo della Torre Sette? «Fu solo colpa delle fiamme»". La Stampa. Retrieved May 26, 2009. La teoria di Gage è che il video del crollo è «la pistola fumante dell'11 settembre» ovvero la prova incontrovertibile che qualcosa è stato nascosto al pubblico. (Translation: "Gage's theory is that video of the collapse is "the smoking gun of September 11" and offers compelling evidence that something is being hidden from the public.")  Cs32en  17:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose The organization is highly significant, given statements made by Bazant and other similar sycophants, and it is gaining more and more press recognition by the day. I'll add more to the article itself later. AE911truth is now too large, specialized and important to be referenced as merely a part of the 9/11 Truth movement, which is rather difficult to define. Wowest (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I look at it from a practical point of view. People will be looking for a neutral and informative summary of what Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is about, and Wikipedia will be one of the most likely places where they would go to find such a summary. AE911Truth, being one of the most prominent groups of professionals who are calling for a new investigation, certainly qualifies as being notable and widely known. Removal of this article would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers and unhelpful to its reputation, which should be a reputation of providing reasonable, fair, and unbiased coverage for well-known topics such as this. Wildbear (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merger. Much of what is here is what they say about themselves, and what they're quoted as saying about themselves. The reliable part should be merged, probably into 9/11 Truth movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger, per my reply to Tom above. I also ask that we invite uninvolved admin to close this policy based discussion. Unomi (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose This group has established its notability. Even US MSM is reporting on them.Tony0937 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that's an interview with Richard Gage. This page is just rehashing the 9/11 conspiracy theory arguments, and gives no evidence for the existence of an actual group outside Richard Gage's assertions and their own website. Fences and windows (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article reports about the group: Olivier, Clint (May 27, 2009). "Controversial Group Re–Examines 9/11 In Clovis". KMPH FOX 26 News. Retrieved May 28, 2009.

Strongly oppose – I've read article about 9/11 Truth movement, there is no doubt that anyone who end up there, end up with little or no credibility at all. I'd estimate that merge would be damaging to the reputation of this group (something that we shouldn't do, ever) and I'd weigh that said estimate is a prime mover behind the proposal. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support This is an obvious move, as there really isn't enough to say about this group that can't be said in the truth movement article. The subject receives only passing mention in articles about the truth movement, so independent notability is not really established. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have provided 9 sources above that all deal with AE, how exactly is notability not met? Unomi (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. We can't have every individual group getting an article. especially as this group seems like the very definition of a fringe group. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NationalPost.com Opinion Piece

I removed a cite to the NationalPost because a) it was an opinion piece used as a statement of fact and b) according to our article, its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is in doubt[3]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Jonathan Kay just wrote to me asking about some information. I'll send him this link and let him know that his news organization is considered not reliable in fact checking according to wikipedia standards. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the National Post makes an unsourced extrapolation from a single event and is tagged with a {{refimprove}} template.  Cs32en  18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First reference / Membership

The very first reference only gives the name of the organisation, and doesn't discuss or describe the membership in anyway. It therefore doesn't support the statement to which it is attached. Verbal chat 09:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Even with the quote, it still doesn't support the "organisation of/including architects and engineers". It only supports that it is so named, and that it has professionals as members. Verbal chat 09:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The professional status of the members of the organization might be disputed by some people (though I haven't seen any reliable source that has disputed it), but there is no dispute that they are working in the field of architecture and engineering. The source supports the word "professional". There is no source given for the fact that 7 WTC had 47 (above ground) levels, either.  Cs32en  11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So you agree it doesn't support the sentence in the lead to which it is attached? I'm sure such a reference exists, but this one isn't it. References aren't just there for decoration. Verbal chat 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It supports the word to which it is attached.  Cs32en  11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't how references work, so I have removed then the unsupported words. Please add back with a reference. Verbal chat 12:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should clutter the text with references for information which is obvious. As an encyclopedia, we should be more explicit than newspapers, so "architectural and engineering professionals" is just a better choice of words, compared to "professionals". It's really not that important.  Cs32en  12:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the misuse of references is important, and I think establishing what exactly the membership of this organisation consists of is important too. Although, since they describe themselves as experts acting outside their expertise, one wonders why they bothered. Verbal chat 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any members? What do we know about the membership? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a question that has started to bother me. Verbal chat 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Training and experience

Well, the source is talking about architects and engineers in general, not the organization in particular. If we misrepresent the source, then the sentence actually tells more about the opinion of editors that have been involved in the writing of it than about the subject of the article. Well, as some readers wouldn't mind to get such information, I'll leave it as it is, for now.  Cs32en  13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote is clear. Verbal chat 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is.  Cs32en  15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And it says that as architects and engineers they are acting outside of their expertise. Verbal chat 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Which tells us that we should add "as architects and engineers" in the article, to reflect what the source actually says.  Cs32en  15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's about this group of architects and engineers. Verbal chat 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

“ Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience. ”

That is the quote in full, using it the way you do is quote mining and misrepresenting their statements verbal. I suggest that you change the edit yourself. Unomi (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether the quote refers to all architects and engineers (your interpretation) or this group (mine) isn't really important, as it still states that they, as architects and engineers, are acting outside their expertise. Not quote mining or cherry picking, rather a bit of stupidity on their part (there are many examples on their site). I have misrepresented nothing, and would ask you to remain civil, assume good faith, and not make such accusations. Also please stop at least giving the possible impression of hounding my edits, thanks. Verbal chat 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not hounding your edits, the fact that your edits call for correction can hardly be blamed on me.I would hope that Tom Harrison would be a bit more active in helping you become a constructive editor. I apologize for making the impression of not assuming good faith, I was making the mistake of thinking that you were proficient with the English language. I realize that the quote in question might not be the most easy of constructs to parse, :::I will try to render it a bit more understandable for you.

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces.

I trust that the above is clear to you. A&Es know how buildings should be constructed and how they behave.

However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

The way these buildings behaved and the artifacts their collapse created did not correspond to what their training and experience had taught them.

I fully realize that you will consider this OR etc. If you wish we can take this quote to a wider audience, I think though that you will accept the quote to support a statement such as the group itself states they are acting "clearly outside the scope of our training and experience" is not only torturous English but also a misuse of sources. Unomi (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are acting outside the scope of their training and experience. The reference supports what the page says. If after discussion there's no consensus (that doesn't mean a vote) someone can start a request for comment if they want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And please drop the side comments, they are unnecessary in making whatever point you wish to get across - and people are more likely to agree with you if you're nice. I-no-u are capable of it! (poor pun, sorry!) Thanks. Verbal chat 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 deniers

Verbal, I have made a partial revert of one of your edits. Referring to the 911 truth movement as 9/11 deniers on the basis of 1 opinion piece is not becoming of an encyclopedia, I hope that you will refrain from adding it again. While one might argue that referring to it as a 'truth movement' could smack of NPOV, that happens to be what they call themselves and they are generally referred to by that moniker. Unomi (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference uses the term 9/11 denial, hence we should. Verbal chat 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A single opinion piece used as a reference uses the term, here is a hint, we don't refer to Islam as islamofascism, we dont refer to the Republican party as Repugnicant or Abortion as baby-killing. The reason we don't do that, verbal, is because this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of talking points or a blog. Please refrain from inserting POV text into articles in the future. Unomi (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stay civil, and I have not advocated any of those things. Find a different reference which uses your preferred term and bring it here for discussion if you like. Verbal chat 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly civil, I am also becoming somewhat annoyed at your tendentious editing style. There is no need to provide a separate source to refer to the movement by the name that they call themselves and as they are widely known. Unomi (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unomi: You were the one who first complained that we should use the wording of the source. Now we're using the source exactly as you wanted. Problem solved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have invited a 3rd opinion on the matter. Unomi (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who first used this source (I don't think it was me) but I edited the article to say "supporters of the 9/11 conspiracy theories" which is probably as neutral as we can get. However, you complained saying that wasn't supported by the source.[4]. But your edit wasn't supported by the source either. So to address your concerns, I changed it to what the source actually said. But now you seem to have reversed your position. Is there any particular reason for this sudden change of heart? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AQFK: I am not sure what you are referring to, this source seems to be used exclusively to introduce the moniker of '911 deniers', I would strongly suggest that you take steps to undo the farce of encyclopedia writing that you are now engaged in. Unomi (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AQFK provided a 3rd opinion above. Just provide a good RS reference calling these events what you want and then we can use that, and I'd be happy with it. Verbal chat 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AQFK seemed not to be exhibiting independent thought, and as such falls short of a '3rd opinion'. I should not have to supply an rs for us to agree that using partisan and inflammatory language is unbecoming of an encyclopedia and that the addition of such language is an undesirable trait in a contributor. However, in the interest of congeniality I will humor you, here is one at random [5] feel free to use 'self-described truth movement'. Unomi (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11. There's AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, etc. so there's nothing un-encyclopedic about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim to know what they do or do not deny at this point, what I am saying is that the use of 9/11 truth movement seems to be more prevalent than 911 denier and that articles in wikipedia should reflect usage and self identification, as I understand it Tom Harrison, AQFK and verbal seem to disagree with my interpretation of policy and guidelines, correct? Unomi (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"9/11 truther" is more common, but this source isn't the only one to use "denier." It appears in The Sunday Times (London), September 10, 2006; the New York Times, April 28, 2008; The Weekly Standard, September 15, 2008 Monday; and in a number of less prominent publications. We should neither avoid it, or use it exclusively. That Truthers don't like it means nothing. We're already distorting mainstream coverage by separating this group from the other less presentable Truthers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So it is more common, and it seems to be what they self identify as. And your argument for supporting the introduction of the moniker '911 deniers' is what exactly? Your views on distorting mainstream coverage seems to be at odds with the sources I mentioned under the merge discussion. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"...your argument for supporting the introduction of the moniker '911 deniers' is what exactly?" That the source cited says '911 deniers'; that other sources use the term; that self-description is mostly irrelevant, especially for fringe groups. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom, you do understand that the only thing that source is there for is to introduce '911 deniers'? Are you wholly aware of the level of editorial bias this reflects? You are defending introducing blog talking points as 'fact' regarding the moniker by which they are referred. Unomi (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems not to be the case, per Verbal's diff below. I see three choices: 1) find another source; 2) take out the sentence it supports; 3) use the terminology the source uses. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference was introduced here by Cs32en. He added it to support the sentence it still supports. We should use the words of the reference in this case as there is dispute, and stop questioning the motives of editors, but this does seem to show that you are wrong in your assumptions. Verbal chat 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, a 3O was requested for this page. Since there are now more than two editors involved, a 3O doesn't really apply. If you want to drum up more consensus, try WP:RFC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(I saw the third opinion request, but I doubt I could claim to be completely independent). We have articles on AIDS denialism, Holocaust denial, and the like even though pretty much nobody describes themselves in such terms. It is, however, how well-respected intellectually independent sources describe them, and the proper terminology for these kinds of articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your restraint. It is true that there is other stuff. Specifically it is true that people whom deny the extent or existence of the holocaust are often referred to as holocaust deniers, it is true that people whom deny that HIV causes AIDS are termed AIDS deniers. On wikipedia they are also referred to as such, I am not sure this is a great idea but the reasoning that I can accept is that this is due to the preponderance of the use in RS. This is hardly the case here, and the manner in which it is introduced cannot be termed NPOV. Regardless of ones views on their position I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that wikipedia policy supports its usage here. Unomi (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for RfC

Er, I am not sure that policies, guidelines, and proposals is a good category to invite wider participation for this discussion. It looks to be more focused on Wikipedia internal stuff rather than article content. Quality of sourcing matters here, of course, but this discussion aims to apply rather than form policy. maths, science, and technology and politics seem to me more relevant, but let us iron it out here before taking it live, yes? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We might also try Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah I figured policy was regarding the application of policy not forming it. Apologies, I will defer to your better judgment of where it should be listed, I still believe that it is a simple matter of preponderance of sources vs POV terminology. Unfortunately I have to sign off for awhile. Enjoy, Unomi (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "9/11 Truth Movement" is a neologism that we should avoid using. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, 9/11 Truth Movement is a term loaded with strong libel and unfortunate label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFourFreedoms (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say "9/11 Truth movement" is commonly being used

1. Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
2. Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement' {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 30, 2009. a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 30, 2009. A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The '9/11 Truth Movement,' as it is now commonly called

Use of the terms "9/11 Truth movement" and "9/11 deniers" by reliable sources

9/11 Truth movement

1. Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". New York Times.
   • the movement known as "9/11 Truth," [...]
   • The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement
2. Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (See also: MSNBC)
   • The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement"
   • Author unknown, but often quoted by the 9/11 truth movement
   • Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government
3. Grossman, Lev (Sep. 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion
4. Thornburgh, Nathan (Jul. 1, 2008). "The Mess at Ground Zero". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • a new twist on the 9/11 Truth Movement
5. Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
6. Tobin, Hugh (May 21, 2008). "Conspiracy theory lunacy". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
   • the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia
   • those in the 9/11 Truth Movement
   • groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement
7. "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. July 4, 2008.
   • George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement
8. Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times.
   • an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
   • British MP Michael Meacher, became a touchstone in the 9/11 Truth movement
   • the 9/11 truth movement is fighting a kind of asymmetric war
   • the likes of the 9/11 Truth movement
   • Fenster thinks that the 9/11 Truth movement
   • Perhaps the 9/11 Truth movement is
   • by the 9/11 Truth movement
9. Monbiot, George (Feb. 20, 2007). "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.
10. Walker, Peter (Sep. 14, 2007). "Binoche falls for 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Juliette Binoche has allied herself with the 9/11 'truth movement'
11. O'Connor, Rory (Nov. 16, 2006). "Joining the dots of ineptitude". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Lance has actually done the 9/11 truth movement a distinct service
12. Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
13. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post.
    • The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called
14. Gibson, John (May 17, 2007). "Rudy Giuliani Squares Off With Rep. Ron Paul Over 9/11 at GOP Debate". FOX News.
    • The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
15. Sullivan, Will (Sep. 3, 2006). "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll". U.S. News & World Report. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • The film has made Avery, who was twice rejected from film school, the toast of the 9/11 Truth movement
16. Hayes, Christopher (Dec. 8, 2006). "The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers". The Nation. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (See also: CBS News)
    • the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
17. Manjoo, Farhad (Aug. 7, 2008). "The Anthrax Truth Movement". Slate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • members of the 9/11 "truth" movement
18. Rossmeier, Vincent (May 16, 2008). "In the land of believers". Salon.
    • experiences with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
    • a convention for the 9/11 Truth Movement
    • equating Christians with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
19. Leonard, Andrew (Oct. 3, 2007). "Yet another horrible housing data point". Salon. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • usually associated with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists
20. Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
    • the "9/11 truth movement," as the conspiracy theorists call themselves, to date.
    • arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement
21. Harvey, Adam (Sep. 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted". Courier Mail. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • what adherents like to call the "9/11 Truth Movement"
22. Taibbi, Matt (Sep. 26, 2006). "I, Left Gatekeeper". Rolling Stone. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement.
    • What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
23. Nelson, Rob (Jul. 7, 2008). "The Reflecting Pool". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • The 9/11 truth movement might believe
24. Kennedy, Gene (Sep. 8, 2006). "BYU Professor on Paid Leave for 9-11 Theory". KSL TV. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jones is a physics professor involved in what's called the "9-11 Truth Movement."
25. O'Neill, Xana; Grace, Melissa (Sep. 9, 2007). "Filmmaker arrested during city protest". Daily News (New York). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jones is closely linked to the 9/11 Truth Movement
26. Walch, Ted (Sept. 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • the so-called "9/11 truth movement"
    • Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement
27. Ruelas, Richard (June 9, 2008). "Activist hungry for 'truth' about 9/11". The Arizona Republic.
    • Some of Gadsby's theories, and those of the 9/11 Truth Movement
28. Lemons, Stephen (Aug. 8, 2007). "The Yoda of 9/11". Phoenix New Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • outright lies of the 9/11 truth movement

Both terms

1. Bunch, Sonny (Sep. 24, 2007). "The Truthers Are Out There". The Weekly Standard. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Leftwing causes converge with the 9/11 denial movement.
   • the loosely affiliated conspiracy theorists that comprise the 9/11 Truth Movement
   • not everyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement was so crazy
   • these 9/11 deniers

9/11 deniers

Please provide links to sources where available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Manjoo, Farhad (June 27, 2006). "The 9/11 deniers". Salon.
   • converts to the "9/11 truth movement," the loose affiliation of skeptics who doubt the official story
2. Abel, Jennifer (Jan. 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall?
   • The 9/11 deniers have another explanation.
3. Post, National (2008-09-27). "A tale of three candidates". National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada). As recently as last year, Ms. Hughes was still peddling her preposterous views, appearing on a panel in Winnipeg with notorious 9/11 denier Barry Zwicker and others. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
4. "English-Arabic Public School Faces Harsh Critics". National Public Radio (NPR). 2008-05-15. But soon after the school is announced, you know, she began seeing herself depicted in the media and blogs as a Jihadist and a 9/11-denier. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
5. Goldstein, By Steve. "Few theorists insist terrorists were not behind attacks". Philadelphia Inquirer. Among the leading 9/11 deniers is French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book "L'Effroyable Imposture," or "The Horrifying Fraud," is a refutation not only of the official version of events but even of eyewitness accounts. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
6. ELLIOTT, By ANDREA (2008-04-28). "Her Dream, Branded as a Threat". The New York Times. In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a 'radical,' a 'jihadist' and a '9/11 denier.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
7. John, Ray, (2008-06-22). "How skeptics confronted 9/11 conspiracy advocates". Skeptic (Altadena, CA). Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content mayhave been the 9/11 deniers' biggest mistake. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. BETTELHEIM, ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN; WES ALLISON; ADRIEL (2008-04-17). "INCOME INEQUALITY ON THE RISE". St. Petersburg Times (Florida). Iran's 9/11 denier - The statement - 'Again today he (Ahmadinejad) made light of 9/11 and said that he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
9. White, Roland (2006-09-10). "Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms". The Sunday Times (London). David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. 'We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true,' he tells the New Statesman. 'The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane.' Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. 'I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
10. Gazette, LINDA GYULAI, The (2006-06-05). "Resisting the machine: Monsieur Bergeron goes to city hall". The Gazette (Montreal). Media organizations were calling for interviews with Bergeron. They wanted to know why he was a 9/11 denier. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.

Self identification and prevalent terms vs 911 deniers

What terminology should this article use when referring to persons and groups who oppose or promote alternatives to the prevailing understanding of the events surrounding the September 11 attacks?
Involved discussion is explored in the preceding section; please reserve this section for outside comments. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read most of this discussion… I'm not sure how to characterize it. If we seek logical, prevalent, encyclopedic and neutral term to sum it all up it should be 'concerned citizens', or simply 'citizens'. It might not be the best term for this article though, especially if we're seeking impartiality. Since this is issue of terminology, we should seek something outside of this… this mindset is unfortunate, imho that is. I'd suggest we seek other terms, such as critique, critic or criticism. Of course the most natural way to settle this would be to call it as it is and it is a group of architects and engineers which questions/criticizes official narrative of events which transpired on 9/11. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The above editor is a new account as of the 29th (but not a new editor) mainly posting at Talk:September 11 attacks. Leaving the question of who it is aside, we should be both following sources and prevailing terminology. There would be nothing 'neutral' about calling such a group simply 'concern citizens' - it is a fringe group and we should not be suggesting that it isn't. If of course it's a group at all, something I question. It appears to be simply Richard Gage and a website set up to garner publicity, and support, both in terms of finance and signatures. I've seen no convincing evidence that this is a group in the normal sense of the word, and I don't think we should lose track of this issue. Dougweller (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If we take a broader scope, and I've examined the broader scope, then there is little way to overcome 'partisanship' with terminology we've adopted; which is obvious if one takes a step back and takes a look at this or similar discussions elsewhere. It should be clear to anyone willing to see that all of these groups are 'citizen groups', I'm afraid that 'truth movement' is a very divisive and extremely ill conceived construct whose only purpose is libel. It is a grave consequence of misconduct and 'poor tactics' some of editors choose to deploy. Such irresponsible conduct (libel) comes into Wikipedia via 'unprofessional and biased opinion makers' not to be scrutinized but amplified, this amplification then tends to reflect out of Wikipedia and we are without any doubt to be blamed for that. Utter lack of responsibility it is, instead of noting the libel spread by some of the sources out there, we are adopting it to become equally unprofessional 'opinion makers' as those sources are. It should be clear that such conduct breaks our guidelines (scientology case). Please hold no grudge for such remarks. If there is a better place where 'poor terminology' and the 'deliberate mistake' of adopting it instead of noting it are discussed, I'll be glad to engage in decent exchange. I'm not sure if it was said, but the terminology we use harms our chances to reach consensus even before we show will to build one. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)