Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::::::I must have missed it, what was the message?--] 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::I must have missed it, what was the message?--] 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That we can't assume he made those posts? ] (]) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That we can't assume he made those posts? ] (]) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Dornicke did make those comments and signed them with his own timestamp...but I'm not an authority so I can't be cited.--] 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Please ] Misplaced Pages in an Encyclopedia which deals in reliable confirmed sources - not widely discredited "conspiracy theories". You will get nowhere on here by trying to present your nonsense here, nor will you stop ] by trying personal attacks - that is also against Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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)
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
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
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
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
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:
Can Pearl Harbor be added in the beginning of the article in terms of perspective?
I was just wondering why Pearl Harbor wasn't added in terms of perspective because it was the most foreign destruction act on American soil right next to 9/11.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, there are plenty of sources that can draw a comparison. Both acts were carried out by foreigners, both acts were carried out by planes, both acts were surprise attacks, and both acts killed more than 2,000 American citizens within a span of a few hours. See this link here, another one here, and this one here. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The first one is clearly an opinion column, per the heading (and URL); the second borders on commentary, but appears to be essentially a dual interview; and the third is essentially an interview, usable only for Dreifort's opinion. I'm not sure they are usable. — Arthur Rubin(talk)07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Wichita interview draws some interesting parallels and differences. I notice also that there is no mention of the Oklahoma bombing, until then the biggest terrorist attack in the U.S. or the Kennedy assassination, which until then was the main event that most people remembered what they were doing when they heard about (just as Pearl Harbor had been). It might warrant mention in the article, but I do not think it should be in the lead. And you need better sources. TFD (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Because we are talking about foreign acts of destruction on American soil, not domestic ones as JFK assassination and Oklahoma City bombing were carried out by U.S. citizens. And for these links, how do you know that the articles doesn't warrant the use of putting these kind of information in the article? You can't assert these articles as opinions and since people based on the similarities and comparisons on facts and not opinions. There are more links to come by as well. , , and . XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Of the three articles, the first was published as an opinion column, and the other two seem only to assert that the interviewees see the connection, not the reporter. With respect toWP:RS, that's an opinion. — Arthur Rubin(talk)08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
But we have seen plenty of comparative analogies between the two events and least this editor isn't asking us to chitty chat about how the mean nasty neocons or the Jews "did it"...and that's refreshing at least.--MONGO15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Arthur, now are you saying my three new links are just opinions and not based on facts? I can't believe that you come to this conclusion. Are analogies now are just opinions and not based on facts? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to look at the new links when I wrote that. The first two look reasonable, although phrasing of the first suggests it may be a "column" rather than an "article", and hence only useful for the opinion of the author. The third is clearly a "column". — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Just removed the addition...seems excessive to me and has no place in the article introduction anyway.--MONGO05:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
They are not "just opinions and not based on facts", they are opinions based on facts. So the relevant policy is weight - are these opinions so significant they should be included. Different opinions could be based on the same facts. There is a difference btw between a military attack by a world power during a world war designed to destroy US power in the Pacific and an attack by a small group of terrorists. If you had secondary sources, they would explain this and then we could determine what weight to provide different views. TFD (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So are you saying that the fact 2,403 killed at Pearl Harbor and 2,777 killed during the 9/11 attacks are just opinions? These numbers are widely similar. Can you name me any other foreign attack that caused thousands of deaths on American soil within one hit? I would love to hear it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah do you understand the concept of synthesis? You should look up what it means and why we don't approve of it. --Tarage (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: "Asahi Shimbun and The New York Times: Framing Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks", comparisons on treatment of the two events do appear to be more than simple opinion as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." this statement is so subjective wikipedia just got knocked off its pedestal in my paradigm. Now wikipedia is just another information source you have to be critique of... Thx, for all the good years wiki:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.109.126 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, the second paragraph of the "Memorials" section contains a sentence which reads "...Plans for a museum on the site have been put on hold..."
Is this not incorrect, since a museum now exists there?
67.247.63.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the comment from Gob Lofa, whilst it is not informative, it needs to stay until a consensus is reached on whether the aircraft were used as "weapons" Neither editor has given informative reasons - one way or the other. Further discussions from other interested editors is required. I also need to think-over my own views. David J Johnson (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. Many things can be used as weapons, even if they aren't specifically designed for killing. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The entire article is quite ridiculous. Something more ridiculous, something less ridiculous won't make a difference. The article is garbage, a international joke. Dornicke (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gob Lofa: true. Can you explain why the list in the infobox is helpful to the reader, though? We already mention the aircraft central to the attack in the first paragraph of the lede, and the knives really need prose explanation in the article body (as is done) to be meaningful to a theoretical naive reader that knew nothing of the attacks. To me, this list is just taking up space without adding any value to the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Controversies
We have here an article about one of the most relevant events in contemporary history. A governmental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic.Dornicke (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea where you get your information, but the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source, if not the definitive source on the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source. LOL. See what I'm saying? Ridiculous. Editors of the English Misplaced Pages want to rewrite reality. Dornicke (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning.--Korruski15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't quite see when that article dates from, but it looks to be 2001-2002. Personally I don't really see the significance of it, but if you think that a fairly obscure funding disagreement in the early days of the commission report is notable then I am sure you can propose an addition to the article along those lines. Just be sure to avoid adding anything that can't be directly sourced to that article.--Korruski15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't care about your personal opinions of the significance of the sources, you can keep them to yourself. As for the sentence If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report.. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning - Stop right there. I'm not talking about "conspiracies", I'm talkikng about factual history reported in mainstream, relevant and reliable sources. The 9-11 Commission was HUGELY criticized for being underfunded, for conflict of interests, etc. This is on the major newspapers throughout the world. Don't try to play the "conspiracy theory card" to freeze this article in this version, which reads like a institutional pamphlet of the White House. There are and there were several criticism towards the 9-11 Commission. Not addressing this issue is FALSIFYING REALITY. Period. Dornicke (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No, there's nothing to support those claims. The tapes are merely "attributed to Bin Laden", as several reliable sources have already stated, such as The Guardian ("A recorded message attributed to Bin Laden", "A voice attributed to Bin Laden" ), Al Jazeera ("major statements attributed to bin Laden since 2001" ), BBC ("Since the 11 September 2001 attacks, a number of video tapes, audio recordings, faxes and other statements have been attributed to Osama Bin Laden", "Audio message purported to be by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden), CNN ("new statement attributed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden"), ABC ("threats attributed to Osama bin Laden" ), CBS ("recordings attributed to bin Laden"), CBC ("audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden"), etc. The article, in fact, should say the attacks are attributed to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, since there hasn't been any kind of factual evidence or tribunal sentence confirming that. Dornicke (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. "Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States." --NeilN19:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A tribunal is not required to establish the connection: ample sources, including Bin Laden himself, have established the connection. This is no different from describing Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's assassin in the absence of a trial. Dornicke, stop tring to water down material to support conspiracy theories. Acroterion(talk)19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
How do we know Dornicke really posted that, though? Maybe it's just someone with revdel access overwrote a real post by Dornicke. Attribution in the signature isn't enough proof that that post wasn't written by an admin trying to besmirch Dornicke's name! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Bin Laden is said to have claimed responsability. Only.
The Guardian - Bin Laden voice on video, says TV channel: "A male voice - apparently that of Osama bin Laden - praised the hijackers as "great men . There was nothing to indicate that the sound-only recording attributed to Bin Laden had been made since the war in Afghanistan. The voice attributed to Bin Laden praised the participants individually by name". Dornicke (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
That post is attributed to you only by the site. If you claim that is your post, it's still only attributed to you by the site. We don't know if you're really Dornicke. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It means that, by the logic you've presented, we have to assume your account has been compromised, and so have to assume that it's not really you pushing inane conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Have no idea how you came to this absurd conclusion. My logic is: if something is attributed to someone, we must say in the article that something is attributed to someone. Period. If there's a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, we'll say this painting is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, not that is a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. The same thing applies for Bin Laden. Dornicke (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Your posts are only attributed to you by the site, we don't know they're really by you. As such, there's perfectly well the possibility that post was made by an account hijacker. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Really don't see what your point is, but I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant for the present discussion and just an attempt to divert the subject. Dornicke (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you just post that or was it an avatar of yours?--MONGO 19:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC
Please Dornicke Misplaced Pages in an Encyclopedia which deals in reliable confirmed sources - not widely discredited "conspiracy theories". You will get nowhere on here by trying to present your nonsense here, nor will you stop MONGO by trying personal attacks - that is also against Misplaced Pages policy. David J Johnson (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the