Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 29 May 2011

	9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 12, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑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 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. 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. Template:WikiProject September 11, 2001 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views 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. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:September 11 arbcom Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories 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: 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, 42Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

adding Image

Not applicable. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think to add this image is necessery for this articel. It is wery fameous.PowerAustin (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 它是我, 25 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change the sentence
:

"........ Jones has presented the hypothesis that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings and says he has found evidence of such explosives in the WTC dust."

to (already in code):

"........ Jones and other scientist have published a study proving the presence of thermite in the WTC dust.<ref name="Harrit">{{en}}Harrit NH, Farrer J, Jones SE, et al. (2009) The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2:7-31. .</ref> Jones poses the hypothesis that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings."

I think this addition adds quality to the article, since this is a scientific publication of the study in which thermite was found in dust from the 911 WTC collapse. With kind regards, 它是我 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

它是我 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Actually, I added an additional line about the journal article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This has previously been rejected, and I see no evidence that the consensus has changed. It's not "scientific" (IMHO), and it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, according to generally reliable commentary. I'll see what can rationally be recovered.

(followup) Not only is it undue weight as written, but the claim and reference appear earlier in the section. I added the phrase, "published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal" to the previous statement, and removed the new sentence entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Language in Pentagon Section

I have to take issue with the following sentence at the end of the section on the Pentagon:

"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."

The word aircraft in this context implies that these videos do indeed show a commercial passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, thus proving once and for all that is what happened. If you have taken the time to actually watch those videos you can see that they prove almost nothing for either side. It's impossible to tell what's happening in any of them, let alone prove that it was a commercial passenger jet, or a missile. Some kind of revision in language is necessary here. Something like:

"The videos show an impossible to identify object hit the building at high speed."

Or something of the like. Using the word aircraft here is disingenuous. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does show an aircraft. Whether it's discernable is another question. I haven't seen the video in a while, so I honestly don't remember. But I checked the source and the opening sentence states, "The US justice department has released the first video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001." That seems to confirm what our article says. Do you have a reliable source which says otherwise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I definitely see your point. How about:

"The videos reportedly show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."

I'd say that's pretty accurate. What do you think?

P.S. Please forgive my comment formating. I'm slowly figuring it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL Mystylplx (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What he said. The source states that it is an airplane, and we have nothing to contradict that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "reportedly" is not biased and is not a weasel word in this case. It's the word that accurately describes the situation. The videos, in fact, do not "show an aircraft striking the building at high speed," because it's impossible to tell what the object is from viewing the videos. Now, it is true that the sources you point to report that the videos show the impact of Flight 77, and that is how this needs to be portrayed in the article.

We're supposed to take it on faith that it was indeed a commercial airliner, because that is what we've been told by the media, but this entire conversation has to include the possibility that the media hasn’t been told the entire truth. Otherwise this is no longer an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, it’s an article about regurgitating the media’s debunking campaign. In this case, it’s only fair to the article that something be done to temper the phrase:

"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."

This sentence implies that these videos are the end of the discussion, and that it’s a fact that the impact of Flight 77 is what is portrayed in them. Please watch the videos again. There is no way of being able to tell what is hitting the Pentagon from viewing them. The only thing we do know, as fact, is that the sources you point to report that’s what is happening in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a weasel word. It implies doubt that doesn't exist in reliable sources. Also see the policy on verifiability not truth. Mystylplx (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't here to "include the possibility that the media hasn't been told the entire truth." See WP:TRUTH. An encyclopedia only reports what's already been published in reliable sources. Trying to infer meaning from the video is against our policies. We're not going to "temper the phrase," because that means asserting our own view of what the video shows. An encyclopedia isn't meant for that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, The videos show an aircraft is misleadingly implying that the aircraft is discernable in the video. The US justice department has released the first video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon (BBC) does not imply that a plane is discernable in the video. Here's what is said in the BBC video (linked from the article, under the picture): "At first it's hard to make out the hijacked plane. But look closely at the lower right-hand corner. The white blob entering the frame appears to be the nose of the plane, skidding along the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. That adds to images from a second security camera, ten feet away, which show a white streak in the lower right-hand corner, then the explosion." (emphasis added). The Judicial Watch page does not say a plane is seen in the videos at all. --V111P (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is perfectly entitled to publish original research (such as analyzing the video and coming to a conclusion). Misplaced Pages, however, may not. Plenty of reliable secondary sources unambiguously state that the videos show an airplane (e.g., the very first google result, for me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/). Nandesuka (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The videos show the airplane, not an airplane. We "know" it's the airplane, but not from the videos. MSNBC: The airplane is a thin white blur on the video. Yes, I'm afraid "The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed" is original research, so I changed that sentence to read: The videos do not clearly show an airplane. so that it better reflects what the majority of reliable sources say. I also considered, and we can use something like that instead if you think that would be better,: The image of the airplane which appears in the videos has been described as " white blob" and "a white streak" (BBC), "thin white blur" (Associated Press), and "a silver speck low to the ground" (The Washington Post). --V111P (talk)

(oops) On the contrary, we have sources which say "The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed." It would be absurd to say otherwise. On the other hand, if a reliable source says otherwise, and it is not corrected in a later article from the same reliable source, that should also be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, first you can cite your sources, and than we can argue which ones are better, or we can say there are conflicting interpretations. What you can't do, however, is to put unsourced statements back into the article, as you just did. --V111P (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no argument here. Every source identifies the image/videos as Flight 77 and that's how we'll report it. A description of the appearance is not relevant to the fact (as reported in RS) that it is indeed Flight 77. RxS (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

"When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." So where are they in the photos? Big things, no?--andreasegde (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The above was deleted, as it was supposedly not about the article. The sentence quoted is actually in the article. If this comment is deleted again, I will take the matter further.--andreasegde (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a photo service, and talk pages are not a forum for discussing photos or interpreting them. Misplaced Pages does not interpret, it reports on reliable sources. So the question would be: is the sentence sourced. Answer: yes, it is. Sören Koopmann (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The page referenced is not the page that talks about the Pentagon. After finding the correct page, I found this: "one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." This article uses "one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." Notice the similarity? Apart from that, my point is that not all published sources should be accepted as gospel. If a wing "hit the ground", it did not hit the building. Mete Sozen is a civil engineer, so I'm sure he is well able to talk about the Pentagon's columns, but not aeroplanes.--andreasegde (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not follow. A wing hit the ground, but the entire plane smashed into the Pentagon. You're assuming that the wing which hit the ground sheared off and should be visible outside. The cited source does not state that. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. If a wing hit the ground, it is not stated in the article that it later hit the building. That's the problem here. Clarity is paramount.--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing unclear about the article statement. You literally quoted our article saying "one wing hit the ground." You're arguing semantics to say that our article implies the wing hit the Pentagon; that's pedantry. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "our article" is alarming, and very shocking. Do you really think you control this? Please read WP:OWN, to learn more.--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. What about our article is alarming? And I use "our" as the collective, as it belongs to all Misplaced Pages editors. So please do not accuse me of ownership simply because we disagree. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should get back to the point. Mete Sozen is a civil engineer, meaning he is qualified to talk about the structure of the Pentagon. In the referenced article, it says, "Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings: 'What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass'." He is not qualified to know that. BTW, I have put quotation marks in "our" article, and a reference from Purdue University.--andreasegde (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No answer?--andreasegde (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was attending to real-life issues the past few days. And I really don't have anything to say to your comment about Sozen, as it seems unrelated to what we were discussing before. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Request for renaming

Shouldn't the article be entitled 9/11 Inconsistencies? --Solde9 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The major "inconsistencies" are only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. Any event shows minor inconsistencies when thoroughly analyzed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But what about these Architects and Engineers http://ae911truth.org/, and these pilots http://pilotsfor911truth.org/? Aren't they reliable sources? --Solde9 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theories article so it's named properly. And no they aren't reliable sources. RxS (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not understand. They aren't professionals? It's not their opinions valid? --Solde9 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to your question on my talkpage. Both are advocacy organizations devoted to promotion of a fringe viewpoint. and are neither neutral nor scholarly, as they are specifically organized to present views that are emphatically rejected by most of their respective professions and by mainstream sources and researchers. Misplaced Pages does not give undue emphasis to fringe views, and neither is considered a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand now why they are not neutral and why they are fringe, but I still don't understand why they aren't scholar either. --Solde9 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's because they don't follow the Scholarly method. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Many scholars would not publish their thoughts exclusively in scholarly journals. That does not make them non-scholars. There is a difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a press release, of course. However, working papers, for example, are also scholarly texts, yet they are essentially self-published and should be treated as such.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not if they don't follow the Scholarly Method. Nightscream (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While this may not be of much relevance to this article, there are many cases in which editors have legitimately used information and opinions from scholarly experts that has been published in newspaper interviews, op-ed pieces etc., i.e. that was not published according to the Scholarly Method.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's not of relevance to this article, then what's the point of mentioning this? Of course sources are cited all over Misplaced Pages that are not written according to the SM. But here, we're talking about a fringe view, which is why WP:FRINGE applies, hence my answer to Solde9's question. Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it may become relevant to this article, for example, if some editor would decide that scholars would no longer be scholars just because they support a fringe viewpoint with regard to a particular question. This is an article about a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, so the guideline applies in a somewhat different way than for an article about a generally accepted theory in which a viewpoint held by a (small) minority may or may not be described.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The label "scholarly" is not withheld from a view or idea because it's a fringe viewpoint, let alone a minority one. Rather, it is not scholarly if it does not follow the Scholarly Method. No one editor has the ability to change this, and if one tries to edit in accordance with this notion, their edits will be reversed. Many ideas were held by a minority, and could even be called "fringe" views, but were indeed scholarly, because they followed the right methodologies, and were eventually confirmed as true. Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So if we follow this 99% of the article needs to be deleted because the vast majority of 9/11 "conspiracy theory" sourcing and sourcing for debunking the theories used in this article are not from scholarly method only publications. While the the sources are not "scholarly method" sourced they are reliably sourced that is all that is necessary. Edkollin (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume that Nightscream says that opinions expressed in a non-scholarly way should not be presented as scholarly opinions, even if they are expressed by scholars. I tend to agree with this, although there are opinions that are restatements of opinions that have been expressed in a scholarly way before, and these may well be presented as scholarly opinions. Apart from that, I'd say that the discussion in this section seem to have generated a fair share of misunderstandings already.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What all sides of this debate conveniently forget

Minoru Yamasaki did WTC! 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

... what's your point? — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The man who constructed the World Trade Center died way before 9/11 what does this have to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories? Edkollin (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

According to one of the theories, explosives have been planted in the buildings already during construction, but I'm not sure whether 198.151.130.69 intends to allude to this. Neither am I sure that there are any reliable sources reporting on that theory.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

9/11 was planned already in the early 70s? Somehow, it is getting even more reachy. I guess long-term conspiracies are popular now with the birthers running around. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

William Tahil's Nuclear Demolition

William Tahil has proposed (and seems to earnestly believe) that a nuclear meltdown (or a couple) was/were intentionally triggered deep below the towers on 9/11. Um...Wow. And here I thought I'd heard it all. While this is sufficiently bonkers to qualify alongside the other nuttiness in this article, is it too obscure to warrant a mention? The next thing you know someone will claim that a bunch of lizardmen rule the world. Oh...wait. (buries face in palm and shakes head) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.20 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Too obscure, I'd say. I don't even know what kind of mechanism he could propose that would turn a nuclear meltdown into collapsing a building in this manner. — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what kind of mind comes up with such ideas. And who is William Tahil? Someone whose opinion should carry some weight? HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Donald Rumsfeld's 'slip up' not mentioned in this article?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.63.181 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to mention it, we would need a reliable source to establish that the the 9/11 truth movement regards this is one of its central points of contention. If you can provide a source per WP:V and WP:IRS, then we can add it. Nightscream (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a WP:RS for it. The reason why it's not in the article is probably because no one thought of adding it or because this is an article, not a book, and some details are obviously going to be omitted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

this sentence must be reliably sourced or removed

"Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks"

It's totally unproven BS and should be removed. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The new sourcing is seems to be little improvement, I wouldn't consider globalresearch.ca a reliable source. SK (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If a source uses all caps - is it proper to fix it?

I added a speech from John Buchanan from his own campaign web site. Practice has been that a person's own words on a campaign web site are citable as fact for what he said, and not for anything else. The problem is that his web site uses all caps. Should the quote be "fixed"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be transcribed, in my opinion. SK (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. MOS:QUOTE says to preserve the original text, spelling, punctuation, bold and italics as written by the author. Although casing isn't specifically mentioned, preserving case seems to fit the spirit of what the MoS is saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used as valid sources for the opinion of the person who has published the respective source, but only in articles about that sources, or, although this is generally to be avoided, if the person is a recognized expert in a relevant field. So maybe there are good reasons to included self-published sources for statements of experts on nuclear energy in the article on the Fukushima nuclear disaster, as the academic publishing process takes time, but there is no particular reason to include such sources here. Anyway, neither is John Buchanan an expert in a relevant field, nor does he express an academic opinion.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The claim is that a presidential candidate holds a specific position. His speeches are RS for asserting what his position is in his own words as made in his specific speeches. No use of the words other than as a quotation in order to show that he used those words would be proper, and that is precisely the use made. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Political_Candidate.27s_Campaign_Website. I rather think the use is not "unduly self-serving" by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Close, but not exactly. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. In this particular case, Collect is using an SPS for information relating to Buchanan and his activities (running for for president on a 9/11 "Truth" platform). In any case, we're already doing this plenty of times in the article with cites to 911Truth.org, stj911.org, www.physics911.net, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While his website is perfectly acceptable under WP:SELFPUB for his speech and his positions, I think we need to keep WP:SECONDARY in mind for sources regarding his candidacy. I've added the secondary source for his candidacy that was in Buchanan's article, but I now see that it's only a preview to the full article, which requires a subscription. I believe that this is allowable, so long as the publication information is present, though I'd personally prefer it if someone would replace that preview link with one that was not a mere preview or required a subscription. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of self-published sources, there are two problems: authenticity and notability. While the authenticity is probably not in question with regard to the self-published source presented by Collect, the notability is. That has been resolved, in my view, with the secondary source provided by Nightscream. In my view, and I would add that this is probably a gray area in the policy, if a secondary source exist that establishes the notability of an opinion or position put forward by a person or institution, then authentic self-published sources may be used to reflect that opinion or position more accurately. Those sources should, however, not be used to expand freely beyond what is being reported in secondary sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

the source is a presidential campaign site of a person who is specifically notable (has his own WP article). The candidacy was reported in secondary sources. The speech text, however, is not found in secondary sources, but is reliably sourced to the campaign. Such text is generally accepted on Misplaced Pages as being a true source of what the candidate said. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request: Can someone add the secondary source at 9/11 Truth movement‎‎? I can't do that, right now, due to general editing restriction (1RR) that apply to this article?  Cs32en Talk to me  00:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Wildbear (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a 1RR restriction on 9/11 Truth movement as far as I can tell. What gave you that idea? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of entire Building 7 subsection

Why was this entire subsection on WTC Building 7 completely deleted, along with the supporting reliable sources? Is it irrelevant? Is it somehow biased or misleading? Are the sources unreliable? You really should give a precise reason for deleting an entire section of an article along with all the support references:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=430572843&oldid=430470741 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics