Talk:September 11 attacks

See Also section

According to WP:SEEALSO:

“ The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable quantity. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. ”

I've removed one link that was already present in the article text and several that are extremely unlikely will ever be integrated into the article text. That leaves us with two links:

• Families of September 11
• Legal issues related to the September 11 attacks

I haven't looked yet, but if anyone can spot a place where these two links can be integrated, please do so. If they're not going to be integrated into the article, they should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Patience, please, AQFK. "See also" sections are not deprecated, and can be useful to readers. Writing a comprehensive article which needs no "See also" is extremely difficult. Here we surely need to make improvements one step at a time. Geometry guy 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think there's a link that I was too hasty with, please restore it or post it here for discussion. As for the remaining two links, that's why I kept them and opended a discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with you doing that. I would caution, however, against putting the cart before the horse: the ultimate content of the article will determine the need for a See also section, not vice versa. Geometry guy 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Geopolitics vs politics in cultural impact section

I removed "geo" from "geopolitics" in the cultural impact section. The issue is that "geopolitics" is too narrow a term for the political issues that are included in the article. Also, the preceding subsection is about "government policies toward terrorism" and has nothing to do with geopolitics from what I can tell. All we have are mentions of domestic political issues. The aftermath section had a bit more about geopolitics, but it is no longer in that section. Given that the impact was in the broader scope of politics we should not say "geopolitics" in that sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, and do so reluctantly, as I am fed up with arguments over individual choices of words, and with editors insisting that each word in the article (or even this paragraph) is protected from change by consensus. It is an attitude that prevents normal editing and encourages a battleground mentality. I agreed upon the inclusion of this paragraph, not the choice of every word in it.

In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, the word "geopolitics" is appealing here for two reasons: first, it is a catchy word, and second, there is an overlap between politics and culture. The sources do not use the term, so unless we find one which does use it (in this context), the first reason should be dismissed: good encyclopedic writing is not about using unattributed unsourced eyecatching words; there are plenty of other ways to make an article interesting. The best case for "geopolitics" here is that it contrasts cultural impact with an aspect of politics which has a relatively small intersection with everyday society and culture.

However, that is also a weak point: the whole point of the first sentence is to make an interesting and relevant contrast in order to introduce the rest of the paragraph. We don't want to write, for example, "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond architecture and structural engineering into society and culture in general."

I think we are trying to say that the impact of 9/11 on society is not purely political, and then give more cultural and sociological examples. For instance, conspiracy theories, which prompted this whole debate in the first place, evidently do have both political elements and even geopolitical elements. What we've agreed, however, is that they are most notable from a cultural and sociological viewpoint, as with the other examples discussed in this section. That's the consensus we are building on, not the choice of every word.

So I prefer "politics" here to "geopolitics", but am open to any rewording of the first sentence that is based upon an agreed goal and the reliably sourced material we present. Geometry guy 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You made a previous suggestion about the term "political arena" and I think that would be sufficiently catchy and still be broader than the current term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes: in praise of my own suggestion :) the term "political arena" makes a contrast between the formal, partisan, governmental and institutional (including international) aspect of politics, versus the more cultural and sociological aspects of politics which are implicit here. It would be nice to have a source that makes the contrast in a similar way, but I believe this is the contrast we are seeking to make in our presentation/organization of source material in this section. Geometry guy 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

International Politics? I'm not a stickler for wording on something like this. --Tarage (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that many of the political effects were domestic and others international. Not adding some sort of narrow prefix to politics is the most accurate way of wording it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Geo's suggestion is fine. As I said, I'm not enough of a stickler to be bothered by this change. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also been asked to comment, so I'll write some of my thoughts here. I agree that the term geopolitics is technically more narrow than the breadth of the topic might warrant. It reads well in the sentence, since 9/11 might be thought of as largely a geopolitical event. But 9/11 undeniably had considerable political repercussions as well. I'd be concerned that if the term "politics" were used alone, the reader might perceive that as being somewhat provincial, just as "geopolitics" might seem to be too confined to an international view. I don't have a good suggestion at this time, since I feel that adding too much qualification to the term would just slow down the flow in the paragraph, with little beneficial gain. I'm okay with either "geopolitics" or "politics" - I have no preference for either. If anyone comes up with a better idea, I'll be ready to put my support behind it. Wildbear (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about "political arena" as suggested by Geoguy?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider it acceptable, and perhaps an improvement. I looked through a thesaurus for similar words, and "arena" seems to convey the intent about as well as anything; in that it implies a virtual space, rather than a real geography. Wildbear (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No page about 11 September attacks is complete without mentioning the large number of people who on the basis of the video and other available evidence, find the official account unconvincing. In particular: World Trade Centre Building fell with freefall acceleration. World trade centre 7 video analysis Pentagon attack video footage from this article: small object appears on right hand margin of image immediately before explosion does not look like an airliner white flash on impact - is not consistent with fuel/air explosion Other evidence: Lack of aircraft wreckage at pentagon. Suspicious activities, removing wreckage from World Trade Center before it could be forensically examined. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Please review the archives for very extensive discussion of inclusion of conspiracy theories. Please remember that this talkpage is not a forum for speculation or general theorizing: there is a sourced article at 9/11 conspiracy theories that is linked from the article and which discusses the CT issues in detail. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOR, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:FRINGE. Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Warnings Before the Attack", Condolezza Rice is listed as the Secretary of Defense. At the time of the attack, Condolezza Rice was the Secretary of State and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. It is not clear who actually received the information mentioned in the article. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake...at the time of the attacks, Condolezza Rice was the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State. She did not become the Secretary of State until GWB's second term in office. My apology for the error. JCF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

blp

The quote attributed to Sec. Rice isn't in the source cited; since it's contentious and likely to be challenged I've removed it[2] per WP:BLP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea.--MONGO 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I added another, better sourced quote attributed to Rice with this edit. [3] lessismore (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

MONGO reverted it [4] with this comment:revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher. The part with a serious argument against my edit is he said she said. Anyone would like to restore the edit rephrased, so it's clear that the phrase was attributed to Rice by senator Hart? Or is there another reason why this edit doesn't fit to the article?

On the other hand, according to which WP policy a user can be labeled (for ever?), as Mongo labeled me in the comment? Doesn't Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#POV_pushing and WP:AGF suggest otherwise? lessismore (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary was incivil and I apologize for making it. I did not agree with your addition and think it is tangential in the extreme to what the focus of this article should be, which is the attacks themselves...a position I have alwasy held.MONGO 20:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok (apologies accepted). The "Warnings" section is there already, and in fact, I tried to find a better source for the quote which Tom had removed, instead, I found this interview by D.Talbot wit senator Hart. I won't insist on this edit any further, unless some other editor expresses his/her opinion. Perhaps, I shall move the edit to the proper subarticle. lessismore (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well...my sentiments have always been that in this particular article, we're lacking focus...I think over the past year edits made by some have helped to streamline the items...but it in my opinion unless the article can get more focused on just the attacks, it hasn't a chance of becoming a good article again, much less a featured one.--MONGO 03:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Warnings section

A Quest For Knowledge appeared to have removed mention of the August memo and replaced it with duplicate material about the July meeting mistakenly. The statement that material was not supported by the source is not accurate. If it is a reference to the "several officials warned or were warned" statement that is a typical WP:SUMMARY of the section's content. Should it be about the "contentious" wording that is supported by the Blanton source. Everything is thus supported by reliable sources and some material was mistakenly removed. As to there not being discussion, that is not a legitimate basis for reverting changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past we have made the most progress on this article when we discussed edits on talk before making them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur...MONGO 14:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that discussion be had before a change is made. Edits are the preferred method of getting consensus. In this case the change is uncontroversial, just some retooling of the paragraphs and a few sourced additions. Should AQFK have an objection to part of the material on the basis of it not being directly sourced that can be easily remedied by finding another source and adding it to the material. That is no basis for a wholesale revert. Your response was actually appropriate and constructive as concerns were addressed through editing rather than reverts. Discussion should ideally only be a resort when there is a contentious dispute that cannot be remedied through normal editing. Forcing a discussion on every little change only obstructs the improvement of articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's Bold - Revert - Discuss. Your bold change has been reverted, and AQFK has expressed concerns that it may not accurately reflect the sources. The next step is discussion until we reach consensus. It's pointless for you to unilaterally declare your change uncontroversial. Manifestly it is controversial, or it wouldn't have been reverted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts are actually removing information about the August briefing. Also, removing the entirety of the material doesn't help BRD because it doesn't tell anyone what is being disputed. If it is only part of the material being disputed then there is no basis for reverting all the changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

These precipitate and unilateral changes are disruptive, and are coming close to screwing up the article. You need to stop this at once, stop reverting, and propose and get consensus for your changes. It may be necessary to take the page back to NuclearWarfare's version of 13 March 2012 just to untangle what you've done; I'll wait for others to look it all over. I was a fool to try and accomodate your rewrite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting all the improvements I made to that section would be overstepping. If you have any specific objections to the changes I made then raise them here and let us discuss them. Discussion is quite impossible if no one is going to say what problem they have with a change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What improvements? Looks like some conspiracy theory POV pushing to me...how about you take a break and I'll look over your "improvements" this evening and if they don't look like what they do in my latest cursury glance, then maybe we can add some of it...MONGO 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Nothing I did has anything to do with conspiracy theories. The warning section has been in there for some time. All my changes did was remove the timeline-style appearance of the section, move it out of the "attackers" section since it had nothing to do with them, and clarify a few points in a way that would actually be a disservice to conspiracy theories. Some objectionable changes that had been in that section for some time were noticed as a result of me editing that section, but I was not the one who put the material in there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To make it easier for you to look at the improvements here is the first change I made to the section: [5]. You can see from that what it looked like before I began making changes. Here are the most significant changes I have made since then: [6] [7].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It has all the appearances of overemphasis on the advance knowledge debate...which is a pretty lousy article in itself, riddled with CT and over reach to promote a POV...namely LIHOP...that the Bush administration let it happen. I always love it whenever someone tries to word the innuendo first THEN adds the disqualifying statements...it would be better if it simply stated the facts...namely that Rice et al, and other members of the Bush administration were briefed on the potential for a slightly greater risk of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, but the evidence was meager, in fact so meager, that all that could be done was to continue to monitor the situation.--MONGO 00:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who put this section in the article. I merely clarified a few points. However, it certainly merits inclusion in the article as this is a very significant issue with lots of mainstream coverage. Still not finding a single claim here regarding any specific material not being supported by the sources. AQFK only said the material "may" not be supported by the sources and has so far not quantified that remark.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hum...well, it really does HAVE to be your way I suppose...but allow me to underline a point I have tried repeatedly to make but don't seem to be getting the message through on...do you concur that an article should follow Summary Style, WEIGHT and FOCUS and minimize innuendo and he said, she said peripherals? I really don't think much if anything regarding the advance knowledge debate (which should possibly be retitled to 9/11 Advance Knowledge Conspiracy Theories) has much merit for inclusion in this article...this is supposed to be about the attacks...whether less or more was known beforehand about whether they would or wouldn't happen is so ripe with speculations that anything of a he said/she said nature can be construed to be pretty much what the reader wants it to be in their own minds...hence, we really shouldn't be going off on that tangent in this article.--MONGO 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be focused on the attacks too, but that whole 9/11 Commission thing seriously looked at who knew what and when. That is also something people would be interested in when looking at this article. We should leave most of the nitty gritty details to other articles for sure, but it has to be mentioned here, in my opinion. However, this is all beside the point. AQFK suggested something in my change "may" not be supported by sources and so far no one has actually pointed to any specific issue. So I will inquire again: what in my changes "may" not be supported by the sources?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with the edit was the claim beginning with "One of the most contentious warnings was the..." Unless I'm missing something, this isn't supported by the cited source. Also, we should be careful not to engage in political demagogy. This memo was seized on by politicians and political pendants as a way to attack the Bush administration. But what I would like to see is some scholarly research on this. What do academics and historians say about this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is any other material you believe is not supported then please say so. On the "contentious" wording, the Blanton source, which is reference #159 at present, contains the following quotes:

The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning

These contrasting interpretations dominated the weekend's news.

The most contentious moments of today's nationally televised hearing of the commission investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks focused on the controversial secret intelligence briefing received by President Bush on August 6, 2001

If those aren't enough we could easily switch out "contentious" for "controversial" or otherwise find another to back up the wording. As to providing what experts think about the briefing, that is a question of further improvement on the content. There are a lot of books mentioning this memo, but I am not sure how many would fit the bill.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, again, I think this is pretty flimsy for incorporation into this article...secondly, you italiczed FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack. and then have this ref supporting the italiczed info...perhaps I am tired, but I don't see that information in the cited reference and I have read through it 3 times...I keep looking but I don't see it..can you explain which paragraph it is in? Also, there sure is a lot of hyperbole in that source for information...a cursory glance and it looks like a CT website almost, or at least one that likes to throw out links to various clickable documents and then add their own spin to it...do we have a peer reviewed scholarly book source which better evaluates these documents from a more neutral perspective?--MONGO 04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote and source were already in the section that way, I just restored the information that had been there before I made changes. However, the briefing that is linked to from that source does contain the quote. It appears a link on that page is where the previous Rice quote was from as well, though that was not accurately portrayed. As to the source, Blanton is kind of reliable. :) I don't think mentioning these warnings is inappropriate at all for this article. Three paragraphs and 2 kilobytes in an article of this size is not overkill, and it is a matter that gets a lot of attention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The subsection Warnings was added by User:Ciroa on 16 Jan. If I'd read that more carefully at the time I'd have seen the Rice quote wasn't in the source cited for it, and I'd have removed it then, so shame on me for not catching that. Having now looked at the references and thought about it, it seems to me this Warnings subsection is too peripheral to the attacks to be included in this article. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

IF the article has a chance at a good article standing again, it must stay on target with the focus of the title. I don't think TDA understands my complaint about this....perhaps I'm not being clear about it. I can't see any reason why the 9/11 Advance Knowledge Debate article can't be simply a see also at the end of this article. We've already added a Cultural Impacts section (primarily to incorporate links to conspiracy theory articles)...now we have this warning section just to go off on another tangent...this article deteriorates with further and further divergence from what its scope should be.MONGO 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is the exact kind of information people would expect to find in an article about the attacks. I am not sure how this is "peripheral" as it deals with the preparedness of the United States. People would want to know "were there any signs of this coming?" The advance-knowledge debate has been one of the dominant mainstream controversies in post-9/11 inquiries. To suggest it is only "peripheral" to the issue is reaching. Now, is there any opposition to me at least restoring those improvements to the warnings section? Even if you don't want the material in you could at least allow the section to be improved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually...I think it isn't...apparently only you think it is...so if what I think, what Tom harrison thinks and what AQFK thinks doesn't matter to you and you alone, then by all means, override our opinions and do whatever you want.MONGO 14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am only asking if anyone is opposed to me simply making improvements to the section. Any objections to the section being here at all are secondary to that right now, in my opinion. The section's inclusion can be discussed more broadly at another point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We can only discuss the "improvements" you want to add? We're not allowed to discuss whether we think the section even belongs here? By improvements can we look forward to more references that don't actually support the improvements unless we click several more links only available from a website? Without asking again whether there are RS's in a peer reviewed neutral source available...I think the entire section needs to be removed.MONGO 16:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am asking if anyone has an objection to me making some basic improvements. Should you want a discussion over including the section that is another thing. My only issue right now is that the section doesn't look as good as it could look.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

3 have told you they object...do you need 4 objections or 10 or how many do you need. Myself and Tom harrison have both stated that we question why the section is even needed...not sure how else it can be phrased to you. Above in this tread you stated that no beforehand discussion was needed for any of your edits.MONGO 20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

They object to the section itself, which is not the point of discussion here. As to no discussion being need, there is really no need for discussion about changes like the ones I made, but obviously some editors want me to get their approval first. So I am asking if any editor has objection to the improvements I made to the section. If they dislike the section they should initiate a new discussion about that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no point in changing the section if we're going to remove it. As a point of comparison, I checked Encylopedia Britannica's article and they don't have a section on warnings or mention that Rice memo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Is there a new wp policy or widely endorsed and accepted guideline to cross check wp articles against the Encyclopedia Britannica? Do we need to rewrite now every single wp article that has also an EB entry?TMCk (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw men aside, tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics and useful in determining weight because they've already made that determination. If you know of any other tertiary sources, we should look at them, too. See WP:PSTS and to a much lesser extent, WP:BALANCE. The other way to determine weight would be to read every single secondary source and aggregate them. Unfortunately, this is pretty much unworkable in practice on contentious topics because a dedicated POV-pusher can usually find a secondary source that backs their position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are down playing secondary sources in favor of tertiary sources which the policy you cited doesn't do at all. We do report what secondary sources say if they're notable and widely published (which of course determents weight just like tertiary sources can do).
Regarding the subject of the article, there are "controversies" that are reported facts and have nothing to do with that conspiracy crap. Hell, a terrorist attack like 9/11 and no, at least minor, controversy? Give me a break ;)TMCk (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica does talk about advanced knowledge, however. Read the section about the 9/11 Commission and its findings. It includes different information, but still covers the advanced knowledge debate. Would you support including information in the article like what is included there?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we initiate a discussion about the need to initiate a discussion for a discussion that is already under discussion?MONGO 20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't - I'd just support removing the whole section entirely. As to TDA, no, I don't want you making "improvements". I don'y want to sound rude, but I just don't think what you view as an 'improvement' is what others do. Maybe you could tell us what you want to change, as an act of WikiLove and/or good faith? I'd certainly be willing to at least listen. Toa Nidhiki05 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"I am only asking if anyone is opposed to me simply making improvements to the section." You'd do better to post here what you want to change. Our understandings of what constitutes improvement have differed in the past, when a change presented as clear improvement any reasonable man would welcome has seemd to me to be tendentious rewording, emphasis on some conspiracist trope, or a big rewrite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on, the improvements I am suggesting are just a restoration of the improvements that were reverted. You can look at the diffs in the revision history, compare them to the current version, and just say yes or no.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't tell what you mean for sure. For example, you restored on 15:14, 18 March 2012 a paragraph that seems inadequetly sourced. The quote isn't in the source cited, but is from a transcript linked from that source. And why are we using that particular quote? Is it the most representative? Could we use the next paragraph in the transcript, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." Then the paragraph you restored goes on to quote Rice, again from a transcript. Same questions - why those quotes particularly? That subsection on Warnings needs to go. Ultimately to present a balanced account of this issue we'd need a whole article. We have one, but it has problems of its own. So if you insist I say yes or no, I'll have to say no. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"That subsection on Warnings needs to go."
Why? Weren't there some notable warnings (later covered by RS's)? Maybe they weren't to the extend to what happened but warning [from intelligence] there certainly was.TMCk (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for some points; the problem is to present a balanced account in the space we can devote to it. There had been some progress in shortening and focusing the article, then the section on popular culture had to be added, primarily as a place-holder for a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Now there's this section on Warnings with a see-also to September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, which was itself originally created as a sub-article of (wait for it) 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is one element of the background of the attacks, and a major focus of the CTs. Linking it from the section See also might be appropriate, or might not. We already link to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and advanced-knowledge debate is a sub-article of that. I don't think we should be expanding our coverage of the CTs at all, and especially not when the page is already too long. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you may claim, you certainly know I am not talking about "restoring" changes that are currently in the article, but changes that are no longer in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An "improvement" would be to remove the section...we're wasting time discussing things not directly related to the events themselves and this article muddles along a COATRACK for every peripheral thing that deserve no more than a See Also link which allows those interested in tangents the opportunity to read about those things in daughter articles.MONGO 16:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems discussion about improving the section is being side-tracked by arguments for excluding the section so here is what I will do: I am going to go ahead and restore the changes I made to the section, since it seems there is no specific objection to those changes that has not already been addressed or cannot be just as easily addressed through further editing and then I will start an RfC on the talk page here about whether there should be a warning section at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there was already a source for the August briefing quote, a CNN transcript of the briefing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Another issue to consider is article length. During the last GA review, we had to trim the article to get it to meet the length maximum. Since then, we added a new Cultural impact section and now a Warning section. We're probably over the maximum length again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of warnings section

Should this article continue to include this section noting prior warnings of an attack?

Discussion

Comments Support It is a significant and notable aspect of the subject that needs to be mentioned here. Obviously most of the detail should be included in the article on advanced knowledge, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least mention it here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC) ANOTHER RFC?...how many Rfc's are you going to have TDA? 4 editors in the above section said no to the section...<Head-desk><head-desk><head-desk>MONGO 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Oppose as so vaguely worded as to be useless. C'mon, TDA, tell us exactly what you want here if you want a serious discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Oppose per MONGO and HandThatFeeds. I expressed openness to considering your edits if you would just tell us what you want to do, and you never told anyone what you wanted done. TDA's insistence on making 'improvements' nobody wants is tendentious editing to the point of disruption at this point, and quite frankly I am tired of it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Somebody! Make it stop... Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Threaded Discussion There is an existing section Hand, so I will just direct people to that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC) No. You want an RfC, be damn clear what you want accomplished. Otherwise, this is a very WP:POINTy way to get blanket approval for your edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) It is pretty clear, I want to see what the wider community thinks about having a section about warnings of an attack in the 9/11 article. What is included in such a section need not require an RfC, unless it becomes particularly contentious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Keep in mind that we're trying to get this to GA level. We already had to trim the article to get it under the maximum article length. Anyone who wants to add a new section should identify which section they want to remove. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC) I think part of getting it to GA level is making sure it is comprehensive. That is one of the major reasons it was stripped of GA status after all. We should first focus on making it comprehensive and then consider how we might shorten it to a decent length. That way is a lot simpler than trying to shorten it and then making it comprehensive, because then you'll have to go right back to shortening it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC) No, the main reason was that 9/11 conspiracy theories weren't covered. We've now addressed that. Anyway, you're about to be topic-banned so I wouldn't worry about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) The content of the section is the entire fucking point. "a section about warnings" is vague and unhelpful, just like "a section about airplanes" would be ill-defined. Be specific: what would such a section encompass? Without defining the debate, it's useless, filing an RfC for the sake of filing an RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Results

Consensus is to oppose including it. Closing. --DHeyward (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)