This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'm a little concerned this may be a fork of September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, even if not intended to be. I'd really like to make one article (don't care the title) that truly expresses the whole spectrum from mainstream discussion of intelligence (how actionable was it, etc.) to conspiracy theories that foreknowledge was deliberately ignored because politicians wanted to be attacked.
What's the best way to get there? Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
By not doing as you suggest...seriously...we can't mix fact with fiction very well in this topic and so much of the what did they know and when did they know it of this matter is so full of inaccuracies it would be difficult to have this be anything other than a conspiracy theory zone.--MONGO 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not acceptable to have a POV fork even if it's easier. In fact, the policy exists largely because it's a tempting way to bypass or ignore the NPOV problems. Superm401 - Talk 01:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as a POV fork...for instance, we can't combine the September 11 attacks article with the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 01:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It seems to me that 9/11 conspiracy theories is a child article of conspiracy theory. Tom HarrisonTalk 02:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I've debated before that the 9/11 CT article isn't a daughter article of 9/11 attacks...it was a originally a POV fork long ago, but due to the work of some dedicated editors (not me, mind you, I avoid that one) it now does a much better job discussing the CT perspective from a NPOV. The September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate isn't really a "debate"...it is or at least should be about the CT's...whereby the September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks article should be about what is truly in question as brought up by the 911 Commission...the debate article should hotlink from the 9/11 CT article...and this one from the attacks article...--MONGO 02:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not a POV fork any more than Flat Earth Society is a POV fork of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Your desire to be inclusive would have a a "Flat Earth Gravity debate" in the middle of a science article. The best way to get there is to keep "Conspiracy Theory" realms away from factual realms. There is plenty of factual, known information that can be presented neutrally. There is a world of difference between NPOV discussion on whether intelligence was specific or credible and the "debate" about whether it was LIHOP or MIHOP. Let's be clear that those two debates should never happen in the same article and something that is "inclusive" creates a huge WP:UNDUE problem that dwarfs any perception of a content fork. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories makes this very clear. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
An example is the first section of the September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate about planes as missiles. It's a completely synthesized straw-man argument. Forgetting that the Kamikaze attacks have happened since WWII and that Islamic suicide bombers were very prevalant, having a debate about whether planes could be used as missiles as the article does, is silly. Only in CT circles is that an even significant topic. The mainstream, and well-sourced debate is whether threats posed by planes that came up in intelligence memos were credible and/or specific enough to act on. Even today, we know that al Qaeda would love to use an airplane to attack us. If they were successful today, it would not mean that TSA knew it or should have known it and giving a laundry list of prior 'Condition Oranges' or shoe-bombers or training exercises doesn't make TSA more or less culpable than the facts that surround it. That article creates and implies correlation and causality where none rationally exist. It's the trademark of a Conspiracy Theory and their content is so divergent from reality as to not be convergent with articles that deal strictly with facts reliably sourced and verifiable. --DHeyward (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
@Superm401: We're not supposed to write articles that express the whole spectrum of POVs. Per WP:NPOV, we cover majority and significant minority viewpoints. Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints don't get discussed except for an ancillary article (which would be the 9/11 conspiracy theories article). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Dhey, I will repeat what I said on your talk page, if you have any objections to the current state of the advanced-knowledge article then you should fix it. Creating a content fork is not an appropriate response.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
At this point, I'm leaning towards deleting the advanced-knowledge debate article and keeping this one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It was forked off the main 9/11 CT article since the main article was too big...so merging it back won't work unless both are trimmed...there are tons of articles on the pedia built solely to advance a position...MONGO 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The advance-knowledge debate article isn't about September 11 intelligence prior to the attack. I don't think the advance-knowledge debate article is the same topic as this article so fixing it is not the problem. This article is derived from actual events related to 9/11. The other article is derived from conspiracy theories. They are separate topics, not the same topic with differing POV. We don't mention "Genesis" in every article on biological evolution nor do we require the Genesis article be "fixed" so that it conforms to our knowledge of evolution. They are not POV forks, rather different topics. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Your comparisons are bizarre and so off-the-wall as to be distractions. My reading of the lede for the article is that it is about whether officials had significant information and should have acted on said information. Where the article came from originally is really irrelevant. The issue is a matter of mainstream discourse, not just a discussion amongst fringe theorists. Also, this article is more narrowly defined and would not really allow for discussions about general preparedness that are covered by the advance-knowledge article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"They are separate topics, not the same topic with differing POV." Yes, exactly. Conspiracy theories are phenomena of social psychology. The state of US intelligence prior to 9/11 is subject matter for historians. Tom HarrisonTalk 20:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Continuing from above, I'd like to further the position that this article should be maintained apart from what is now September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. It is my understanding that, based on credible expert testimony in multiple forums, there is very much to be written on the subject of prior intelligence from a fact-based perspective. — C M B J 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)