Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 60
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Stickee in topic Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014
 | This is an archive of past discussions about September 11 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 64 |
Reliable sources
|
It seems that not a single element going against the official version is present in this article. So, not a single book or a single article is deemed a "reliable source"? Strange, to say the least. --Japarthur (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
(unindenting for ease of reading)Actually, this article does link to the conspiracy theories page in the 'cultural impact' section. You could argue that the JFK conspiracy theories are much more mainstream and well-embedded in popular culture given that they have appeared in a number of bestselling novels, non-fiction books and movies. 9/11 conspiracy theories have generally been relegated to fringe forums, self-published material and a handful of very niche books with limited circulation. Of course, that's my own fairly subjective assessment, I don't know if that's actually the reason for the difference or if it's just a typical wikipedia case of WP:otherstuffexists. In answer to your last question, I would say - no in theory. In practice, though, I suppose there's an argument that a non-fringe theory is likely to have a wide range of sources, ranging from the highly reliable to the somewhat questionable, and that's probably fine (though obviously not perfect) whereas a fringe theory that is supported by only one somewhat questionable source is probably not going to be ok. I'm not really sure how productive this theoretical argument is, though. Bottom line - if you have well-sourced material you want to add, then do so. If you have identified poorly-sourced material you want to remove, then do so. Just make sure you explain your actions and be prepared to discuss them here if anyone objects.--KorruskiTalk 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC) (Whoops, Korruski snuck in an edit while I was typing) It's a stretch of logic there. Let me clarify what Arthur and Korruski are saying. This article has many reliable sources that overlap to state what is currently stated in the article. Some of them may not be 100% reliable, but due to the overlap, the entire narrative is more or less complete. There have been sources that state things contradictory to this narrative, but they are not reliable. There is due reporting of the phenomenon behind them in the appropriate articles such as the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. In most cases, any new source provided by zealous editors such as Japarthur either contradict existing conspiracy theories, or are not reliable, or both. To put it simply, there is a mountain of sources that state what the article states, and a handful of piles of sources that say various other things. To include more than a mention in the main article of these theories would be placing undue weight on them. Lastly, Wikipedia is a living breathing entity with numerous editors. There is not one right way to build a page, and just because one page does something one way does not mean another must adhere to that page's guidelines. Consensus has been built through calm debate and discussion, and unfortunately it would take quite a bit to reverse it. I hope that helps you both understand the current state of the article and why hyperbole is a waste of time. If you have reliable sources to bring to the table, please do so. Otherwise, I'm afraid this discussion is moot. --Tarage (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we know something because:
|
Are these guys reliable ? ;-) 202.8.72.121 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess he is both reliable, notable, and relevant, but for some reason still no place for alternative views and questions in this article.. well, maybe only a 'conspiracy' mention under 'culture' section. (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There's of course no place here for Iranian TV source, [2], after all, they are USA enemies, and this is en/USA wikipedia ! 175.100.34.115 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- We have never, nor will we ever use youtube videos as sources. Get off your soapbox or your comments will be removed. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care if you think it's relevant. Youtube is NOT a reliable source. Until you find a reliable source, stop posting youtube clips. --Tarage (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- If we agree on the contents merit in terms of WP:DUE, I'll find better links.. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
9/11 means skipping god in kabballah numerology proof number 1: becuase when you go to the 9 cycrle and skipp the 10 to the hidden cycrle which is the 11 the 1st master number skipping god then you are a luciferian becuase you have skiped god. and the sphere in the world train center was to mimik the kabba the holy grand mosque of mecca because proof number 2: Minoru Yamasaki to mimic the Grand Mosque of Mecca, Masjid al-Haram, in which The Sphere stood at the place of the Kaaba. and the sphere was designed in Germany were the order of illuminati was founded Proof number 3: Koenig started work in 1967 in his barn in Bavaria were the order of Illuminati was founded
conspiracy / alternative theories a culture section??
Last warning. Take the soapboxing elsewhere.
|
|---|
This page contains the biggest lies of all time! No facts! Only things you have seen on TV!
Peter Schmalenbach (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Above users say there are no experts in relevant fields saying the opposite. Editor is either ignorant of the mass of the information, which I doubt is true, or what is more likely purposefully dishonest. So many questions about events of the day have been asked by people involved in the events, eyewitnesses, etc.. and those questions have not been answered by officials. I request a more WP:DUE NPOV representations of the alternative view and accounts in this article. Reliable is not only mainstream. Mainstream is controlled. Dahh. Government conspiracies are nothing new, Conspiracy_theory#Proven_conspiracies, [[3]], and people ignoring such possibilities... well... go figure.. 202.8.72.121 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The problem that I see with this article that any mention of FACTS not fitting into MAINSTREAM theory is excluded from the article. I am NOT talking about conspiracy theories, but about RELEVANT, RELIABLE, NOTABLE FACTS. Why is Richard Clark's statement irrelevant, or does not deserve WP:DUE ? Or transportation secretary's? And let me remind some that WP:DUE is a policy, while WP:FRINGE is a guideline. Case is not closed, as it gets reopened over and over by a number of good faith editors, and it gets unjustifiably 'closed' by people without counter arguments. 175.100.37.226 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The problem I'm seeing with your proposal is that any mention of theories not fitting into real facts would be included in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- David Johnson, you don't speak for me. I agree that the section on conspiracy theories in this article should be larger. There has been much mention of those theories and the people who believe them in the media. This article does not currently contain information on that topic in proportion to its coverage in the media. Cla68 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Quite simply, and as mentioned above, there is already a article for "conspiracy theories" and that's where these "contributions" belong and not on a factual page. Wikipedia deals in facts and not theories. Once again: case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Cla68 on this. But I would also like to point out that there seems to be an astounding amount of facts that are deliberately left out of this article, and relegated to a sub-page. On the other hand, this article goes to greath lengths to highlight the role of al-Qaeda, bombarding the reader with excessive biographical details of attackers that may not be entirely relevant to 9/11. -A1candidate (talk)
- This article is about facts, not crackpot conspiracies. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not facts, and thus do not warrant mention in any real detail here. Case closed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Everybody, please remember that Wikipedia , by policy represents mainstream views on any subject, with minority views or fringe views given proportionately smaller or no coverage. See WP:FRINGE, bearing in mind that the view that somebody other than the named conspirators carried out the attack is very decidedly a fringe point of view, as reflected in the scholarly accounts that Wikipedia uses for its sources. Please remember that the existence of other, proven conspiracies does not validate the notion that the events of 9/11 happened as a result of a governmental conspiracy, and that Wikipedia is not a sounding board or soapbox for conspiracy enthusiasts on any subject. That does not mean that the views of authoritative critics of the agencies that failed to prevent the attacks and the investigation process such as Richard A. Clarke, who, it should be noted, is not a Truther, should be excluded. Who screwed up and why is relevant: the problem is that there are few academic sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The argument has never been about the lack of conspiracy theory coverage of this event on this website....the argument has always been about not covering the conspiracy theories in tremendous detail in this article. The primary issue we have always had was who we would reference and what level of detail we would go to. The conspiracy theory proponents always want more, so as far as where I stand I prefer no mention.--MONGO 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- you are missing a point i am trying to make. There are very relevant and notable people like Richard A. Clarke talking different things about 911, and yet you guys guarding this article are trying to pretend that every alternative view is coming from wacky non-reliable and irrelevant sources. !!! Shame on you. 175.100.34.115 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe testimony of transportation secretary recorded on C-SPAN is reputable enough [4] 175.100.37.226 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- youtube was a quickest link i found, however, it is obvious that there is a c-span resource showing the same thing. if we agree it deserves WP:DUE, i will find original link.202.8.75.186 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't think you understand how this works. You bring reliable sources, or you don't insert anything. Until you bring reliable sources, you are soapboxing. This is your last warning. --Tarage (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- so let's see if i got it right this time:
- Bolton, M. Kent (2006). U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-creation. Rowman
- somehow a book from this author deserves to be in the article, whoever he might be, but i guess Richard Clarke's book is, self-published?
- BTW, there are dozen books allowed in Further Reading section. How come you didn't complain about those.. I guess you won't complain about the addition of a new one, by someone more notable for the events.
- Richard, A. Clark (2004) Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
- Oh, wait, there's citing of a self-published books even in Sources section, so maybe, just maybe we actually can use Clarke's book as a source for information in this article as well? In fact, there are few dozen books used as sources... so my question to you guys is, how do you judge the merit of a book before you let it go in the article, or as is case here, when you want to dismiss it as, to quote some "fringe... irrelevant... not reliable..." Where this vastly different treatment of books comes from? Can you enlighten me, as I personally cannot see why his book is so much less significant than those few dozen books already used as sources in the article.
- If you want third party source, I see Slate magazine was already used as a source in the article, so maybe we can use it again: [5]
- Clark's book is a reliable source, and is being cited in the article in question, so you pass in that regard. Now what is it you wish to add to the article? I am trying to see what it is you want added from your previous posts but I'm not seeing it. Please be as concise as possible, as any additions to this already bloated article should be short and to the point as to not exacerbate the problem. --Tarage (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Awesome. So somewhere in the "Investigations" section, or maybe even at the end of "Planning of the attacks" section:
- ... Hijackers were people that CIA had known were al Qaeda and were in the United States....
- ... Somewhere in CIA there was information that two known al Qaeda terrorists had come into the United States. Somewhere in FBI there was information that strange things had been going on at flight schools in the United States....
- 124.248.191.82 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a statement from "counter-terrorism tzar". Whether you believe it or not is your thing. BTW, wikipedia is not about "believability" but about verifiability. I tend to think that a person in charge of counter-terrorism for the FBI knows a bit more than you or me on the issue... no? Whether it fits into the rest of the story is not that relevant... Planes flying into buildings for 100+ minutes without being shot down by the world's most powerful air-force and anti-air defense is also unbelievable, yet that's how it is, and that's what the article describes... as should be. 175.100.45.169 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- also in the culture section, to borrow from the U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#NORAD_timeline, In their 2007 book, Without Precedent, 9/11 Commission chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that 9/11 conspiracy theories had grown primarily because of problems in the previous [NORAD] story about the planes... 175.100.45.169 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- We already note in the article that the CIA knew al-Hazmi and al-Midhar were al-Qaeda operatives living in the United States and did not promptly disclose this to the FBI. That said, I am not entirely satisfied with how it is included at present.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, from the current description it is not clear that CIA knew it for months. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
More good sources with more detailed info:
Our review also found that the CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them. In addition, the FBI did not assign sufficient priority to the investigation when it learned in August 2001 that Hazmi and Mihdhar were in the in the United States. While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks. [6]
Also, special agent's testimony... nice info about Intelligence v. Criminal Investigation issues... [7] 202.8.75.186 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The article is already bloated as it is, and as User:The Devil's Advocate pointed out, it is already mentioned. If you feel more needs to be said, please propose a change, but remember, anything longer than a sentence or two will probably be too much. --Tarage (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also please consider registering an account. I'm having trouble telling the IP editors apart. --Tarage (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- No account needed, thank you. In regards to change, I already gave few proposals.. My POV is that current article understated the failure of FBI and CIA in preventing some terrorists, and that that should be corrected and stated more clearly. I am sure other editors can further improve my proposals if needed. If the article is bloated, maybe some less important info can be left out. Cheers! 202.8.75.186 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe 'reconstruction' and 'memorial' sections can be condensed, as this article is about attacks... 202.8.75.186 (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Make things easier for me. A lot has been said and I'm still getting lost in what is quoted text from books and what is suggested changes. Just put a "Before: blah blah blah. After: Blah bleh booh." Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why waste time...it's just another IP here screeching about the lack of fringe junk in the article. Were not going to add junk some once-upon-a-time-expert said before he got his ass shitcanned...--MONGO 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Make things easier for me. A lot has been said and I'm still getting lost in what is quoted text from books and what is suggested changes. Just put a "Before: blah blah blah. After: Blah bleh booh." Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- MONGO, your wisdom inspires me! 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! I chose MONGO for my username because I knew people associate that name with wisdom.--MONGO 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- MONGO, your wisdom inspires me! 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- To reply to Tarage, CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them. can be placed in CIA investigation section in place of the current mention of hijackers.. as this makes it clear that failure was not in not knowing, but in not using knowledge. And for the MONGO, this was written by the Office of the Inspector General, not by the shitcanned person you refer to... Also, justice.gov reference I think is more appropriate than current one of conservative think tank. 202.8.74.149 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you are suggesting we insert a direct quote, the above change is not what I asked for. Either way, please provide a before and after like I requested. Also, let's keep it civil folks. --Tarage (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- 202.8.74.139...were not adding that LIHOP garbage to the article.--MONGO 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Tarage, I gave enough specific suggestion for the improvement of the article. It's now upon editors with account to accept or reject. Wikipedia is collaboration, so go ahead and collaborate on this instead of constantly objecting and rejecting and whatnot.. Cheers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- MONGO, nice that you can speak in plural, like as if you know what everyone else thinks.. Some people may suggest you are not only wise but psychic as well. I unfortunately do not have those powers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Were not your minions....you want the article to change then create a username and start editing....otherwise all you're doing here is soapboxing. Yes, I am psychic...I predicted accurately that 2012 would not be the end of the Earth.--MONGO 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just to add my support for MONGO's comments above. The contributions from 119.82.253.45 and 202.8.74.149 (? same person) is is really taking soapboxing to the limit, whilst hiding behind an unregistered IP address - this is where my "conspiracy theories" come in! Also support comments from Tarage. I strongly advise keeping article as it is. David J Johnson (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Were not your minions....you want the article to change then create a username and start editing....otherwise all you're doing here is soapboxing. Yes, I am psychic...I predicted accurately that 2012 would not be the end of the Earth.--MONGO 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- MONGO, nice that you can speak in plural, like as if you know what everyone else thinks.. Some people may suggest you are not only wise but psychic as well. I unfortunately do not have those powers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- David, so to get this straight, citing government's official sources that mention things you dislike... is soapboxing and conspiracy theory pushing. Congratulations. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- IP Editor: I am going to ask you one more time, please provide a clean and simple before and after segment so I know exactly what you are attempting to add. I'll even give you an example.
- Before: "The dog was lazy."
- After: "The dog was tired after a long day."
- That's all I want. I am not a mind reader, and I will not try to guess your intentions and edit for you. If you do not wish to create an account, my offer is the only offer you are going to get. Tell me exactly what you want edited in the format I provided, or your edit will not be considered. I think I have been more than fair. --Tarage (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- IP Editor: I am going to ask you one more time, please provide a clean and simple before and after segment so I know exactly what you are attempting to add. I'll even give you an example.
- Before: " He criticized their failure to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and their failure to share information on the two men with the FBI."
- After: "CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them." {{Cite book|url=http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0506/chapter5.htm|title=A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Prior to the September 11 Attacks|author=Office of the Inspector General}}
The material you wish added might be better in the article September 11 intelligence before the attacks which needs a lot of work anyway.--MONGO 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- It can be added there as well, there are many repeating statements in this article and its forked pages... I don't understand why section in this article already mentioning CIA/FBI investigation shouldn't be clear enough. You didn't make this proposal for the less clear statement which has been in the article for a while. 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then YOU can create an account, add the material YOU think is needed and see.if it stands. Stop coming here screeching that it's up to us to do your editing for you.--MONGO 11:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- how hypocritical.. if i had account and made a change there would obviously be a revert war by you as you dislike the change profoundly it appears. your WP:OWNership of the article is obvious. 49.156.39.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can I add my total support for Mongo's comments above. This correspondence has gone on for far too long with the anon. unregistered person commenting, but not prepared to test their views. As I have previously said, I see no reason for hiding behind a IP address when they can create a account for themselves. I'm sure I speak for everyone that no-one here is going to edit for them. David J Johnson (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, provide what I asked for, or drop it. Final warning. --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- your response is beyond ridiculous. i gave you a suggestion in the format you asked for, and you still keep ignoring it. Fill your user page with your warnings, i don't give a damn about them. I am sick of editors like you quasi-discussing and collaborating but in fact acting so passively aggressively. 49.156.39.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Upon re-reading, it appears you did provide what I asked for. My apologies, I missed it. I'll look it over and leave comments shortly. --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so I have a few problems with it. One, it uses the phrase "We". Unless this is meant to be a direct quote, Wikipedia does not use the word "We", "I", or any other word of the sort. If it is a direct quote, it shouldn't be added anyway because it lacks a context. Lastly, I don't really see much difference between what is there and what you want to change it to. All it does is say that the both the FBI and CIA failed. Here's my counter draft.
"The Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) conducted an internal review of the agency's pre-9/11 performance and was harshly critical of senior CIA officials for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. He criticized their failure to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and their failure to share information on the two men with the FBI. Critics have responded that the FBI did properly exploit the information available to them."
- Would this work? --Tarage (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are right that two versions are very similar, which ony makes the above comments of some users even more interesting. The one I found in official document just sounds more clear to me... Your new version includes all the info from both, so might be best, and you can add new official govrnment reference to it as well. Not sure which reference the last sentence comes from... ps. yes, I was thinking of placing the direct quote.. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the conflict comes from your instance to remain an IP editor. While that is your decision, it makes trying to follow the conversation difficult. Any other IP editor can sneak in and start spouting insane statements and it looks like it's coming from you. Anyway, I'll make the edit a little later on, unless anyone objects. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I object but mainly because this article is already overly broad and lacks focus and this has the tint of conspiracy theory meddlesomeness to it...if it's that important to the IP poster they should create their own account and add it themselves and see if it stands.--MONGO 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Object Totally agree with Mongo's comments above. We have given the IP editor many chances to register and present his views, which they seem unable to do. The correct place for their theories is one of the many "conspiracy" sites on the internet. This discussion has gone on far too long and perhaps we should apply for page protection? David J Johnson (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I object but mainly because this article is already overly broad and lacks focus and this has the tint of conspiracy theory meddlesomeness to it...if it's that important to the IP poster they should create their own account and add it themselves and see if it stands.--MONGO 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the conflict comes from your instance to remain an IP editor. While that is your decision, it makes trying to follow the conversation difficult. Any other IP editor can sneak in and start spouting insane statements and it looks like it's coming from you. Anyway, I'll make the edit a little later on, unless anyone objects. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Normally I'd be against adding anything put forward in this manner, but I guess I don't see the conspiracy theory angle in this at all. All I see is a small elaboration that people find fault in both the CIA and FBI. Since we already explicitly mention that fault was found in the CIA, and this is a reliable source, I don't see the problem with the above addition. What part of it is setting off warning flags with you? --Tarage (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Tarage and thanks for your reply. My only concern is that we appear to have the same person editing from multiple IP addresses with very subjective quotes. That person dos not appear to want to edit the article themselves, but expect other editors to carry-out their edits. If the IP editor feels so strongly then they should carry-out the edits themselves and see if they stand. As for the "conspiracy theory" angle, as mentioned above the quotes are very subjective and is already alluded to in the present article and why does the person involved appear to be editing from multiple addresses? Rightly so, anyone can edit Wikipedia - but I see no reason for constantly hiding behind IP addresses. With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- The conspiracy angle is that it's hard to explore the roles and relationships that existed at the time. The CIA was walled off from the FBI through laws. Neither the CIA or FBI (or Justice Department) was responsible for immigration. Since the structure of the government changed massively after 9/11 (Homeland Security now controls immigration and the Patriot Act and FISA courts are where this information is shared. So in hindsight, the IG can be critical that the CIA didn't break or even nose up to the law at the time. There is already a sentence about what the CIA didn't do. Juxtaposing it against what the FBI did/didn't do would be a synthesized connection that the IG of the CIA didn't make. The sentence in the article is adequate for what the IG said but adding more about the FBI would require an entire background of how those agencies were allowed to interact as well as assessing if DoJ/FBI was even the right place to report them or if it would have been the state department to deny visas. There's an interagency connection being made with the additional wording that I am not sure exists in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- To me this explanation sounds like a conspiracy theory. You say it is hard to explore roles and relationships... and yet you did it so succintly in a single paragraph. If you just go to the source referenced, read the two paragraph conclusion section in it, you will see that no synthesis or original research was done in the proposed change. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- BTDT. The edit is completely unnecessary because it's already covered accurately. It's too complex without details and details make a burden for no benefit. Your version is unduly critical (synthesized with cherrypicked quotes) and to flesh it out to show the criticism in context leads us back to the current version. There is simply no value to it. The FBI IG finds nearly all the issues were systemic institutional issues and states that even if they did all the things the IG cited differently, it's still unknown what would have happened. It's too much to address to keep it in proper tone and perspective and cherrypicking quotes is counterproductive to that. For example, these two terrorists entered the U.S. in January 2000, (a year before Bush was in office) and this is listed as one of the opportunities. But it never says why the FBI would have any reason to find them. The U.S. has millions of immigrants every year including some like the Boston Marathon terrorists that become citizens and the FBI is now almost entirely focused on counterterrorism. It wasn't until late August 2001 when they learned these POS's were part of Al Qaeda and that's when they actively started searching for them. So no, I oppose your edit. In fact, after reading what we have and the source for it, it may need to be removed too. If it's too watered down for you, it references the intelligence before the attacks page where the details can be included. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, the tag teaming IP's is not acceptable. There's a reason why we don't allow anonymous proxies or tor nodes to make IP edits and this is in that category. A single IP address that's consistent is okay. Multiple IPs is a form of proxying and should be discouraged with extreme prejudice. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you can read this failed proposal: Wikipedia:Restrictions_on_Anonymous_Editing_from_Shared_IPs which refered to the mainspace.. but I see you are even more ambitious, and would like to push it into talk pages as well. Double fail I would guess... The moment WP stops anonymous editors from participating, I will stop participating... and hundreds of thousands of other contributors I am sure... So go ahead, re-vive above and similar proposals... and stop bothering IPs in discussions till then. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- tl;dr;nr. My only proposal was for you, not policy. You fail to identify yourself as being the same person either with an account or even using a signature. Until then, different IPs are different people making different requests. Please start a new section each time you change IP's. Please feel free to edit mainspace articles as an IP without any discussion necessary (seriously, it's not a policy, everyone can edit!). Be BOLD and implement what you see fit with appropriate, reliable sources. You don't even need an edit summary so we really don't ever need to read your opinion of ANY edit! (Isn't that a superawesome win-win for everyone!?). If your only participation is 9/11 talk pages though, I've already lost too much sleep over losing your incredible insight and edit supervisory abilities. Thanks for all that you do! --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I give credit to Mongo for his tireless contributions to this article. I also too agree with Mongo, but I will put it my own words and I won't be shy about it. This article is not the place for every crackpot, unsubstantiated, and downright fabricated theory. This article only deals with the facts and the "real" truth, not the "fake" truth. This article only needs to mention that "conspiracy theories" exist, but does not need to name or label each one. We have an article for the fiction already. No need to repeat the untruths. If someone wants to push their agenda then they have the entire world wide web to dilute, but Wikipedia is not a place for activism, so take the crackpot theories elsewhere.--JOJ Hutton 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Remember, Wikipedia doesn't report the "truth", it reports what the sources say. If the sources are wrong, then Wikipedia is wrong. If we WP editors try to decide what the truth is, then we are engaging in original research, which is against our policies and expressly forbidden. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- And the sources, at least the reputable ones, already say the truth, so no problem here. Only the nutjob sources say anything different.--JOJ Hutton 21:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Remember, Wikipedia doesn't report the "truth", it reports what the sources say. If the sources are wrong, then Wikipedia is wrong. If we WP editors try to decide what the truth is, then we are engaging in original research, which is against our policies and expressly forbidden. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment MONGO corrrect again. There's a little too much fringe and synth. Clarke had a title in the administration but even the source for his book in his biography on WP said he embellished a bunch of stuff [8]. You wouldn't get that picture that the source paints from his WP article and we certainly don't need that nonsense here. As for Cla, we are not "truthers." Clarke is not a particularly reliable source for recollection of events prior to 9/11 nor is his self-portrait and the way he is portrayed above accurate to the sources. He's a primary source for himself and secondary sources say he made stuff up. --DHeyward (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with the views above that the article is already long and less focused than it could be. The suggested change, in so far as it does anything, makes those worse. It might go better in one of the more specific daughter articles. Tom Harrison Talk 12:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- CommentAgree with the views above and support Tom's view that the article is already long and less focused. As I have previous stated the suggested changes should be in another article. David J Johnson (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- CommentWell, given that consensus appears to be very strong against inclusion of the above edits, I will not be preforming them. I do invite the IP editor to register an account though. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Reports: FBI in contact with bin Laden as far back as 1993
According to newly released court documents, the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden since 1993, but this important piece of information was apparently omitted from the 9/11 investigations.
Perhaps worthy of a brief mention somewhere? -A1candidate (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Article "Verschwörungstheorie!" in german magazin, by Paul Schreyer
Unrelated sources are irrelevant to this article
|
|---|
|
Paul Schreyer published Verschwörungstheorie! which is about his experience in Wikipedia when editing the article "September 11 attacks". --46.115.122.185 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Requested move 2 (or more)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. Snow close. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
September 11 attacks → 9/11 – I know this has been discussed before, but 9/11 is by far the most commonly used name, it's time we recognize this. Charles Essie (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note what appears to be the last title change was discussed here. — AjaxSmack 02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose.--MONGO 04:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose – the short 9/11 is too ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:SUBPAGE we should not use subpage locations when avoidable. Also per Dicklyon, that's just ambiguous, and could easily mean September 11, November 9, September 11 AD, November 9 AD. And it is frequently known as "September 11th" so I don't think 9/11 is by far the most commonly used form either. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry but 9/11 is not just an abbreviation, it is nearer to slang/shorthand. An encyclopedia requires the minimum register of a reputable printed source not a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose This has been discussed before and for all the reasons mentioned above. David J Johnson (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree on the basis of COMMONNAME, and most people understand the term 9/11, but 9/11 could be misconstrued by some and I don't think that's there's anything wrong with the current title. JOJ Hutton 12:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per all above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. 9/11 is ambiguous, the current title is more recognizable. Changing the title to 9/11 doesn't help anyone. Zarcadia (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- When has the term "9/11" ever been ambiguous, has anyone here honestly heard someone use the term 9/11 while referring to some else? Charles Essie (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The dates September 11 and 9 November for starters. Zarcadia (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Proposal, yes the term has other meanings, but it's most commonly used to refer to this, how about a compromise, let's move this page to 9/11 and create a new disambiguation page titled 9/11 (disambiguation). Charles Essie (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose For all the reasons given above. 9/11 is too ambiguous, as already stated. Please accept consensus. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- New proposal, How about 9/11 attacks? Charles Essie (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC) currently shown
- Oppose Please just accept consensus. This topic has been discussed before and agreed as currently shown. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Proposal, yes the term has other meanings, but it's most commonly used to refer to this, how about a compromise, let's move this page to 9/11 and create a new disambiguation page titled 9/11 (disambiguation). Charles Essie (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The dates September 11 and 9 November for starters. Zarcadia (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose moving, not helpful. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --Tarage (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose not according to WP:USEENGLISH guidelines. 9/11 is referred as September 11 in US English. ApprenticeFan work 04:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Snow Oppose No. November 9 is not relevant and confusing. September 11 is much more universal and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
- Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 is not used to refer to 9 November? If so I think you would benefit from reading the article Calendar dates. Also, please make sure you sign your posts Zarcadia (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Did you not comprehend that I said the exact same thing you did? I suggest you read it yourself. Signed -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
- Please don't take offense, I honestly didn't understand the point you were making. If you meant that 9/11 can mean 9 November and confusing as unrelated to this article then I think we're on the same wavelength. Zarcadia (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Did you not comprehend that I said the exact same thing you did? I suggest you read it yourself. Signed -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
- Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 is not used to refer to 9 November? If so I think you would benefit from reading the article Calendar dates. Also, please make sure you sign your posts Zarcadia (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not aware of anything happening on 9 November. This is English Wikipedia (i.e. English language), not American Wikipedia. Too ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
LOL
| Deteriorating discussion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is, by far, the most pathetic article regarding 9/11 from all Wikipedia projects. The section "9/11 Commission" is particularly charming. Not a single word about conflicts of interest, resistance to investigation, unreliable evidence, limited scope and "set up to fail". No. Let's transform this Wikipedia article into a US government press release with a "en rose" approach to the subject. Nice job, guys. Dornicke (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@David J Johnson - There's an article on criticism of the 9/11 Commission, but not the FBI's role in the attacks. Also, I don't see any good reason for keeping all sorts of criticsms in separate forked-out articles. That's not how Wikipedia works. -A1candidate (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to nip this one in the bud. Dornicke, either bring reliable sources that support what you are arguing, or take it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a forum, and if you don't have reliable sources, you will not be permitted to drone on. Period. Final warning. --Tarage (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Haha. I didn't knew about the "Criticism of the 9/11 Commission" until today, reading this thread. Whatever the OP's stand, it just shows again how this article reads like a federal statement of what exactly happened, leaving out anything (fringe aside) that is not conform with our government's view. It's sooooo obvious and thus ridiculous. Not thinking myself that will change in the near future but still, it would be nice if that would happen at some point... before files would be declassified. We have plenty non-fringe reliable sources to do better in giving average readers enough information (w/o having to dig further) to make up their own mind, which with all that is known to be a fact would be that our government's view [since when do we trust them actually? Tax Day is coming and I doubt the majority would trust the government's IRS] is mostly right but sure not 100% as they're self serving and try to hide their shortcomings just like you and me. Try to call me wrong on this... bah... TMCk (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Bin Laden
There is a part of the article where it is said "Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks," This is quite irritating as there is no evidence of this. According to the documentary "Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11", it is said that the Osama Bin Laden HAS NOT been indited for the 9/11 attacks on the FBI website. This claim, which is highly likely to be credable based off the professionalism and research undergone to create the documentary, needs to be addressed. If not, then this article will have a very important piece of information which is highly invalid, hence rendering the rest of the article unreliable. This article is viewed a large number of the American Public and as such must be kept factual at all times to prevent the Shifting of hateful attitudes from passive to Aggresive racism towards Middle Eastern people. Both this comment i have made here and the "opinion" stated in this article are bias, however it is mine that is more valid and reliable as it contains actual factual information rather than ignorant or misguided information. Peace and love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Master Sage (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia uses mainstream reliable sources to determine the content of its articles. The documentary is a fringe source written with a specific agenda, and does not trump multiple mainstream reliable sources. It may be worthy of mention elsewhere, but is not a basis for rewriting the article. The documentary has been out for seven years and gotten little or no traction outside the Truther community. The media's response to the work has been tepid or derisive: see the Guardian, for instance [10]. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014
 | This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"other properties" is too vague. Change text to hyperlink pointed at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center Todd Stiebinger (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- But that surely wasn't the only other property damaged. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Other properties refers to all the buildings described in the Damage section - not just 7WTC. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done - for reasons explained above - Arjayay (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
| | This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ventura 97 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Bin Laden, Holy War declaration; deadlink + fake info
Fixed a dead link, no evidence info is "fake."
|
|---|
|
Link 11 is dead, has been for who knows how long, the thing is the information is fake, the first one to call it a "Holy War" was Bush, which might sound hilarious but how many times did Bush embarass the US? Im not going to source but if you guys cant remember ill refresh your memories, Bush made the mistake of calling it a Holy War before Bin Laden used the term, it was taken as a declaration of fact, and the pope was quite displeased, since the pope is the only one with the authority to declare a war as a holy war, its a matter of religion and politics, point is either way its a deadlink and im sure someone else who cares twice as much as i do can find a source and erase the info. Im too lazy to do it but there it is, if someone cares do it. Darkuu (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|
silly question
how come WTC 1 and art center did not go down, but WTC 7 did which was further away? any sources that discuss this? 216.80.122.223 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- WTC 1 was destroyed in the attacks. The reasons WTC collapsed are discussed in more depth at 7 World Trade Center#9/11 and collapse. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- What is WTC1 on this image ? i think it is not one of the twin towers.. and i think it was not destrayed...[11] 173.165.58.86 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
![[11]](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/World_Trade_Center#mediaviewer/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg){kind=link}
- It's WTC 1, which was destroyed. The twin towers were WTC 1 and WTC2. Note that One World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center have since been built, you may be confusing the new building with the old. Acroterion (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- i guess one of the maps may be incorrect: [12] so there is a building in between wtc1 and wtc7. how come it is not destroyed? 173.165.58.86 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ehm, do you mean 6 WTC? It seems to be the building between WTC1 and WTC7. And it also seems to have been destroyed on 9/11. SK (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- i guess one of the maps may be incorrect: [12] so there is a building in between wtc1 and wtc7. how come it is not destroyed? 173.165.58.86 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
![[12]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EZMGVwURo3M/S_XX-u5-aCI/AAAAAAAACqM/Dfom84g3K9Q/s1600/fig_1_1v2-709490.PNG){kind=link}
- thanks! that answers the question.. because mostly twins and wtc7 are mentioned in discussions... 216.80.122.223 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
9/11
There should be a clarification that 9/11 actually mean "November 9" in most parts of the world (≈91,5%) and that care should be taken to avoid miscommunication.
Even though the English Wikipedia is in English, it should not assume a USA-centric/cultural view on matters/articles.
There are 760 million English speakers in the world and in USA there are 248,3 million that speaks English as their native language, that's only about 33%. Even if you add the 58,1 native English speakers of UK the percentage only goes up to about 40%.
So about 60% of those that speak english have different backgrounds and cultures, and all these 456 million English speakers are a potential user of the English Wikipedia.
So please try to write in a cultural-neutral way and don't assume that everything is done/written/used/handled in the same way all over the world.
I have meet people who believe "9/11" really did happen in November...we should try to be clear enough that people who read a wikipedia-article don't misunderstand anything based on cultural background and also make sure that people understand that stuff (like 9/11) might be interpreted in another way in just about every other country but USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 (talk)
- The first sentence of the article begins with "The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11)..." and there's a further explanatory footnote. Do you have any suggestions on what else to add? --NeilN talk to me 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:ENGVAR applies here. Since this article is about an event that occurred in the US, and has strong ties to it, the correct formatting should be that which is used in said country. --Tarage (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia'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)
- 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)
Conspiracy theories
An anonymous IP attempting to game the system. This debate is over until the user decides to stop playing these games.
|
|---|
|
The associated conspiracy theories are not mentioned at all on this article, other than a brief one sentence acknowledgement of their existence under ‘Aftermath - Cultural’. This is despite the extensive 9/11 conspiracy theories article and even an article describing how many people believe these (Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories)). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally.
As an example, the article Assassination of John F. Kennedy includes both a section corresponding to Part 1 and a sentence in the lead corresponding to Part 2. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Repeated attempts to post puerile nonsense about death rays from space and the like have been appropriately deleted from this talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Response to part 1Response to part 2Threaded discussionNo, the single sentence in the article as of this revision is plenty. See also the FAQ and the (extensive) talk page archives. VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Debate has moved below to RfC, please do not re-open this section.
|
|---|
|
I peeked in the above conversation, and have to say that I do agree that the conspiracy theories are not given the weight they are due in this very lengthy article. It is deserving of its own subsection, and I say this after reading the wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Even the weather has its own subsection! In fact, the source given for the current single sentence about the conspiracy theories, is itself a lengthy diatribe devoted to the subject at hand. And while I was inspecting the source, I found that it does not say anything at all about the level of support from the historian or scientist community. So while the reference does help to establish the notability of the subject, it does not actually support the sentence in the wikipedia article. Smitty121981 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Acroterion for acknowledging and addressing the sources that I took the time to compile! I'd like to briefly respond to your points.
So here's my proposed change, which I feel is consistent with the rest of the article. This would be a sub-section in the "Effects" chapter, just like the Weather sub-section. I tried to take into account the concerns brought up in this conversation: I kept it much shorter than the suggested 2-3 paragraphs to avoid giving undue weight, I did not use any sources published by Bentham, I avoided any mention of thermite, I did make sure to include the two Guardian articles provided as well as several new sources from major news networks, and of course (despite preemptive claims to the contrary) I made every effort to maintain WP:NPOV. Conspiracy Theories
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon.[1][2] Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack,[3][4] that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials,[5][6] and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse.[7][8][9][10][11] 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.[12][13][1][14]
Smitty121981 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
|
New comment
Debate has been closed, please do not re-open this section.
|
|---|
|
I'm going to ask the regulars here to please stop revert-warring on text additions you don't approve of. Unless it's clear vandalism, discuss it first BEFORE removal. When you revert good faith efforts to improve the article, you are rebuffing new editors and probably making WP's editor flight problem worse. The main objections to the addition, after two rude reverts, appear to be "the sources are old" and "I don't like it that much." Good grief, what a welcoming attitude towards other editors. This is the kind of thing that makes participating in Wikipedia suck. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014
| | This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I do note see in the international response section that indeed many in the Palestinian territory were celebrating. 199.255.44.5 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Richard Schwaninger
- We can't add that unless you can find a reliable source for it. Even then , the America haters will say it's biased.--MONGO 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Snopes verified it back in 2008. It's also in our article on the reactions to the attacks, here. Does a mention belong in this article under "reactions"? I wouldn't object. Antandrus (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the article is near the upper limit of WP:LENGTH. IOW, if we add too much to the article, we have to decide what we want to delete to make room for the new content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Excessive length is easily dealt with by spinning out sections to daughter articles, leaving a summary in place. There is no need to delete in order to add. Jehochman Talk 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps if this wasn't a contentious topic and editors were fine with spinning out daughter articles, but that hasn't been the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Excessive length is easily dealt with by spinning out sections to daughter articles, leaving a summary in place. There is no need to delete in order to add. Jehochman Talk 01:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the article is near the upper limit of WP:LENGTH. IOW, if we add too much to the article, we have to decide what we want to delete to make room for the new content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Snopes verified it back in 2008. It's also in our article on the reactions to the attacks, here. Does a mention belong in this article under "reactions"? I wouldn't object. Antandrus (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- In addition to the size becoming unmanageable, adding everything under the sun about 9/11 makes the article unfocused. It might be better if Investigations could be consolidated into one or two paragraphs. Tom Harrison Talk 11:53, 12 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".[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
- @Quest: thanks for fixing.
- @SPECIFICO (fancy your following me here!) As it happens I'm working on more refs for the main article right now that can be used here, but must take a break. You can surely give me a few hours before you delete it all? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be better to avoid taking out or adding significant amounts of material without discussion. In this case, if there's a disagreement it may be easier to work it out at Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO: Carolmooredc has never edited this article before until now.[17] You have never edited this article before until now.[18] Previously, both of you clashed with one another in the Austrian economics topic space which led to community sanctions[19] and eventually an ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics where both of you presented evidence against one another[20][21] and both of you were sanctioned by ArbCom.[22][23] Now, by some miracle of coincidence, you just happen to show up here after Carolmooredc does? Even stranger, your first and only edit is....drum roll please...to revert Carolmooredc?[24] Are you stalking Carolmooredc edits? Can you give me one good reason why you shouldn't be sanctioned again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- The only thing I'll say about the WP:Wikihounding is to share this link to a recent ANI I posted.
- However, content wise, the criticism is rely excessively on primary sourced references and then he takes out everything except two primary sources! Note I was motivated to put this here because Jake Tapper featured the "28 pages" story on CNN Sept 8th; and I see now there are more recent stories in the Huffington Post, New Yorker and Al Jazeera. Due to time constraints, I did not finish my research and was too busy to look for newest sources when I put this up. The new sources also provide an overview of much of the material below. I certainly don't see how this material from secondary sources is problematic and am just posting some of the deleted material here to encourage others to come over to the page, in case mass deletion happens there as well.
- [Their report] detailed failings of the FBI and CIA to use available information, including about terrorists the CIA knew were in the United States, in order to disrupt the plots.REF: Athan G. Theoharis, editor, The Central Intelligence Agency: Security Under Scrutiny, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 222-224, 2006, ISBN 0313332827
- Despite the joint inquiry having developed information about possible involvement of Saudi Arabian government officials from non-classified sources, REF:Ali Watkins, Senate intelligence panel could seek to declassify documents; it just doesn’t, McClatchy Washington Bureau, August 12, 2013. the Bush administration demanded 28 related pages remain classified.REF: Theoharis (OK, so I should have removed "despite" and made it two sentences. Mea culpa.)
- September 11th victim families,REF: Chris Mondics, Struggling to detail alleged Saudi role in 9/11 attacks, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 31, 2014; as well as members of congress are still seeking release of the documents.REF: Paul Sperry, Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup, New York Post, December 15, 2013.
- September 11th victim families were frustrated by the unanswered questions and redacted material from the Congressional inquiry and demanded an independent commission.REF: Theoharis
- Re: alleged synth/misuse of primary sources/etc. I won't argue that while still researching. In any case I will continue to upgrade the main article and will add more details here in the future. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In my edit summary[25], I mistakenly wrote that this had been in the article for some time. That's not the case. It seems well supported, but it's value needs to be balanced against the already large size of the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your revert to the original is about the size I think is appropriate, though I'll always take another 50 or 100 words. And this is the hot investigation issue right now since Obama promised to release the 28 pages and the Supreme Court is allowing the families to sue the Saudis - who want the documents released! And there are Congress people, not yet quoted in main article, saying that reading the 28 pages changed their whole view of the world and US foreign policy. So it's going to be a high profile tug of war for a while. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- What's needed is secondary RS which summarizes the mainstream view of what is most important about the report and its conclusions. We have no RS which looks at the whole report and identifies the Saudi bit or even the redactions as being the primary message or conclusion of the report and its research. Tom Harrison, you're an admin. I reverted a recent edit. Now that you know that, why don't you consider undoing your reinsertion while Carol and others locate content which can pass muster. If you think my criticisms of the first draft are off the mark, please explain why. Greenwood Press is hardly the place I'd look for a comprehensive, balanced summary concerning this investigation and report. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your revert to the original is about the size I think is appropriate, though I'll always take another 50 or 100 words. And this is the hot investigation issue right now since Obama promised to release the 28 pages and the Supreme Court is allowing the families to sue the Saudis - who want the documents released! And there are Congress people, not yet quoted in main article, saying that reading the 28 pages changed their whole view of the world and US foreign policy. So it's going to be a high profile tug of war for a while. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of SPECIFICO's WikiHounding of Carolmooredc at AN/I.[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposal for intimidation-free zone
Debate has been closed, please do not re-open this section.
|
|---|
|
I would like to propose that this article talk page be declared an "intimidation-free" zone. Accordingly, I propose that we all agree that we will be more welcoming to editors who come here trying to improve this article by:
If you agree please sign below. I will, of course, be the first to pledge:
|
Comments should not have been closed for two reasons: the Monday Night Football effect and the Bush 43 administration's failure to acknowledge intelligence on 6 August that warned of an Al-Qaeda attack in the US...starting with the intelligence: even the 9/11 Commission determined that the Bush 43 administration "dropped the ball" when they were informed on 6 August of an attack on US soil. Conspiracy Theorists (CTers) use this fact to make the ridiculous claim that the attacks were an "inside job". All conspiracy theories have been debunked. Quite simply, it was the Bush 43 administration's incompetence that led to this tragedy. "Monday Night Football Effect": at the time of the attack, Monday Night Football on ABC began their games at 9pm Eastern time. This invariably led to a situation where millions of people in the Eastern time zone would report to work much later than usual on Tuesday mornings, and the attacks occurred on a Tuesday morning after a Monday Night Football game. And, the New York Giants played the Denver Broncos the night before the attacks, meaning that millions of New Yorkers stayed up late to watch the game. At the time of the attacks, the Port Authority estimated that, at that time of the day on any other weekday morning, about 25,000 people would be in the Twin Towers combined. That number was broken down into 10,000 employees per tower and 5,000 visitors among both towers. The fact that less than 3,000 lives perished in and around the Twin Towers proves the "Monday Night Football Effect". In other words, this tragedy/terrorist attack was already bad, but, it could have been much worse if Osama bin Laden chosen another morning during the work week. 2601:7:1C80:28:D0CB:D7A6:E574:30F3 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Weather?
"The average diurnal temperature range throughout the United States increased markedly in the three days following the attacks. Some research suggests that the absence of contrails caused by the grounding of all planes in the United States immediately thereafter was responsible for some of this increase." Should this really be part of this article? Tom Harrison Talk 11:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Probably not. Is there another article where this might be appropriate or should we just delete it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's covered in detail in the Contrail article already. It's probably best to remove it from this article, due to a lack of reliable sources linking it to 9/11 history in a significant way. Also, I did a little more research just now and it seems many researchers have disputed the hypothesis, for example: [27] "We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temperature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11–14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails." Smitty121981 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed it. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good removal: it was tangential at best. Acroterion (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed it. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's covered in detail in the Contrail article already. It's probably best to remove it from this article, due to a lack of reliable sources linking it to 9/11 history in a significant way. Also, I did a little more research just now and it seems many researchers have disputed the hypothesis, for example: [27] "We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temperature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11–14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails." Smitty121981 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014
| | This edit request to September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: " The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror ...." to " The United States responded to the attacks by launching what the then US President called "The War on Terror" ...
Reason - The phrase "...launched the War on Terror..." implies in the context of an encyclopedia that it was exactly a war on terror, which is a gross simplification and at least somewhat a misrepresentation of what was actually occurring. The phrase "War on Terrorism" might have been a little closer to at least the stated intent of the action, but given that throughout its history the U.S has committed or abetted actions that could easily be considered terrorism, while not simultaneously warring against the terrorism that it (the U.S.) itself has caused, indicates that a reader should be given a pretty strong notice that this phrase carries some baggage, without needing to read a different page about it. On the page, as it stands, the uppercase letters do not give this warning strongly enough. The quotes suggested above are better, but including the source of the phrase is more explicit and clear. Thanks. StephenRSchwartz (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- My only objection is that it wasn't just the president who used that term. It was used globally. Using the above sentence would put too much emphasis on one person. --Tarage (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think StephenRSchwartz or Tarage bring up unreasonable points. It might be useful for someone to research what sort of phrasing contemporary reliable sources use. But I don't think it's terribly important for this article to explain this since readers can click on the War on Terror WikiLink and get much more detailed information about this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- As an editor coming from CAT:ESP, I'd have to agree with A Quest For Knowledge here in that the change isn't necessary. The term is wikilinked and most sources would use the phrase as a proper noun to refer to that campaign. I'm marking this as answered. It doesn't mean discussion is closed; just so it's no longer transcluded onto CAT:ESP. Stickee (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think StephenRSchwartz or Tarage bring up unreasonable points. It might be useful for someone to research what sort of phrasing contemporary reliable sources use. But I don't think it's terribly important for this article to explain this since readers can click on the War on Terror WikiLink and get much more detailed information about this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)