Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 11 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Misplaced Pages:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Misplaced Pages. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.

September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 19, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed July 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed August 30, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 25, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted May 24, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

September 11 attacks was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 24, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, and September 11, 2013.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: September 11 / History Top‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skyscrapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Template:WP1.0 Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (11 September 2011). "On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars'". The New York Times.

Template:September 11 arbcom

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, Moved, 20 August 2008, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 44#RFC on page title and comma RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Not moved, 13 October 2010, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 54#Requested move RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 31 March 2014, Talk:September 11 attacks#Requested move 2 (or more)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Conspiracy theories

Authenticity of bin Laden confession tape for NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

New comment

Proposal for intimidation-free zone

RfC: Are conspiracy theories relevant to the effects chapter?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

Conspiracy theories

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

1. ^ McGreal, Chris (September 5, 2011). "September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
2. ^ Falk, Richard A. (2014). (re)imagining Humane Global Governance. London; New York.: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. p. 114.
3. "9/11 conspiracy theories". BBC Magazine. August 29, 2011. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
4. "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". C-SPAN. August 1, 2014. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
5. ^ Atkins, Stephen E (Jun 2, 2011). The 9/11 Encyclopedia: Second Edition. ABC-CLIO. pp. 124–126.
6. Norman, Joshua (September 11, 2011). "9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop". CBS News. CBS Corporation.
7. Editors, The. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved August 13, 2014. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Abstract, pg. xiii.

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

• E.3 Summary of findings, pg. xxxviii

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.— Sunder, S. S. (2005), Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST NCSTAR 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— The page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Majority
2. Significant minority
3. Insignificant minority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment @Smitty121981:,

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

The above is not a factual statement,

1. ^ Lansford, Tom (2011). 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq a chronology and reference guide. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 34. ISBN 9781598844207.
2. ^ McGreal, Chris (September 5, 2011). "September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 August 2014.
3. ^ Falk, Richard A. (2014). (re)imagining Humane Global Governance. London; New York.: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. p. 114.
4. "9/11 conspiracy theories". BBC Magazine. August 29, 2011. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
5. "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". C-SPAN. August 1, 2014. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
6. ^ Atkins, Stephen E (Jun 2, 2011). The 9/11 Encyclopedia: Second Edition. ABC-CLIO. pp. 124–126.
7. Norman, Joshua (September 11, 2011). "9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop". CBS News. CBS Corporation.
8. Editors, The. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved August 13, 2014. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

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

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

New Congressional inquiry section

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

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

Conspiracy Theories Again

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

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

Congressional Inquiry Section

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

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2013)
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class September 11, 2001 articles
• Top-importance September 11, 2001 articles
• WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
• B-Class United States History articles
• Top-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States History articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Top-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Top-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Mid-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Top-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Skyscraper articles
• High-importance Skyscraper articles
• WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment