Talk:September 11 attacks

Edit Request

{{edit semi-protected}} Can somebody please change the opening sentence to: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of controversial coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

Sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]

How is [6]([1] above) "Anger over 9/11 comments" from October 21, 2010, from theage.com.au, a SOURCE? Just listing an opinion article or video doesn't make something fact. Could the opening sentence (at least) be changed to "The September 11, 2001, attacks were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States, allegedly perpetrated by al-Qaeda members."

I live in Denver, Colorado, USA. Here's what our State Democratic Party just added to its platform. This controversial plank was added to the State Democratic Party Platform after evidence supporting the critical need for a new investigation was presented at several caucuses in 2004, 2008, and 2010.

"October 29, 2010, Press Release - Colorado Democratic Party Calls for Grand Jury Investigation of 9/11. The 2010 Colorado Democratic Party platform, approved by the 146 member platform committee states: “The Colorado Democratic Party calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”

The jury is still out. Waterflaws (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The attacks are very controversial, and many citizens and politicians alike are still divided over this issue. I would like to see this expanded on in a new or pre-existing section since this is on topic and sourced. Thank you for your co-operation. 76.68.52.131 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No.--MONGO 19:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The above IP...76.68.52.131 comes from the same location as blocked IP 174.89.58.95...check it out for yourselves...here...and...here--MONGO 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --Tarage (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... looks like our IP friend has stated[7] that he has no intention of stopping, so I requested an indefinite semi-protect. --Tarage (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser may turn up a link to a regular user...they may consider that fishing though since I haven't a clue who it could be. They generally only semi-protect talkpages for a brief time.--MONGO 11:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the solution is to grant IP his request for a fair treatment of opposing views. IP is quite right when he states that the article is biased and that it needs to adopt a more neutral stance. His action is clearly vandalism but in the circumstances, it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a soapbox to promote either the majority or the minority view. As it is now, this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government. Oclupak (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is now at arbitration enforcement, as Oclupak has previously been cautioned concerning the 9/11 editing restrictions. Acroterion _(talk) 14:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For my 2 cents as another unregistered user, I feel the use of the word "controversial" in the suggested change is redundant. Given the nature of the event, it is inherently controversial and this doesn't need to be stated. I do feel, however, that the lead should make some statement about 9/11 having a lasting influence on world culture. It's been 9 years now and I think this is now a fair statement to include (and doing so would lead into the "Aftermath" section of the article). Again just my 2 cents. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a good reliable source for something like that, please suggest it. It sounds a reasonable statement in itself (although that's just my immediate reaction) but what we happen to think as individuals doesn't matter; we need a notable analysis to say it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

New Section Request

Unhelpful conspiracy pushing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to respectfully request a small section for 9/11 Truth Movement, either under section 3 or 5, or as a See Also. The [9/11 Truth Movement] article is well sourced enough to be included in the main article, just as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories has it's place in the September 11 Attacks article. The section should include information about the anti-war movement, since 9/11 was the linchpin event for declaring a war of aggression in the middle east. The authors of this article are really hiding a lot of information. There's no point in bringing new information here since anyone who declares the official conspiracy theory a lie is automatically not a reliable source, including government and military personnel. There are a lot more people than you guys think who take this very seriously. [8][9][10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom5000 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC) I think you already know that's not going to happen. Please drop the stick and back away from the horse. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Maybe if the article was less biased the discussion page would get less spam. Freedom5000 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Or maybe we'll just keep denying similar requests. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC) That's fine, it's not like I pay for Wikipedia or anything - not that anyone would after reading [September 11 Attacks]. Freedom5000 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Comments from Iran I would like to respectfully request for the following to be included in the article: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed that his government would investigate the September 11 Attacks. Ahmadinejad does not mean Tehran is insensitive to the pain of the families of the victims but rather showed a commitment to finding the truth behind an incident that triggered a war in a neighboring country. US President Barak Obama criticized the Iranian president's remarks as "hateful." [11] Freedom5000 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Ahmadinejad also believes that the United States is the greatest evil in the world and that the Holocaust never happened. I'd personally like my information to come from a slightly more reasonable source thanks. Soxwon (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Conspiracy Theories section is not sourced The Conspiracy theories section is very poorly written from an encyclopedia point of view. For example: "Conspiracy theorists question the official version of the attacks..." Who is questioning the attacks? This statement is not sourced and seems more like POV or opinion pushing, implying the movement is anonymous. "Some proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories have speculated that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks..." Again, who is claiming this? This is yet another unsourced statement. This section deserves to be rewritten with appropriate sourcing. Instead of using weasle-words how about giving that section some substance? Freedom5000 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This article isn't about the Conspiracy theories, it is about what actually happened. If you wish to get into more detailed information about what the conspiracy theorists claim, go to the appropriate pages please. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This article is biased toward the American version The official American details of this event differ dramatically from accounts of eye-witnesses and foreign media. It's quite offensive to say that media is not reliable because it's either non-English or non-American, or not pro-American. There would not be such a controversy if official conspiracy theory reflected what actually happened. Instead, we have a mainstream media which itself contributes to the lies and deception to promote support for a war of aggression, and we have Wikipedia accounts which support the deception by acting uncivilly toward anyone who rejects the American war on terror. There are even users who like to lie just for the hell of it here. Freedom5000 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC) I'm archiving this, you've proven yourself to be just another fringe pov-pusher. Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC) The article is still incomplete The article still does not incorporate any description of the anti-war or 9/11 truth movement. 9/11 was used by G. W. Bush to declare a very unpopular war of terror. The article should cover more opposing views and war protests, just like this article here: Opposition to Vietnam War. Without the opposition, this article becomes so biased it might as well just be deleted. Freedom5000 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Classic WP:SPA. 92.76.137.170 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Agree that the requesting account is a SPA.Jojhutton (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) No. Go away. --Tarage (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC) What happened to the good faith and civility? It looks more like WP:GAME to me. Catalyzingevent (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Why look, another WP:SPA. I totally care about what you have to say. Please continue, or not. --Tarage (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC) ...as a reminder once again.--MONGO 03:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories in introduction

Hi, can someone explain why there is no mention of conspiracy theories in the introduction ? (just asking) any link to a rule or a past discussion would be great, thank you.--Spota (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

At the top of this page there are links to 54 separate archived discussions from this page. Use the search box to make it easy (since they're long). Consensus established over the last several years is to not mention the conspiracy theories in the introduction. Antandrus (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Smells like a WP:SPA. Checkuser please. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

CU is not for fishing and they just asked a question please AGF. Mo ainm~Talk 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That was also their first and only edit. Someone deciding that their very first edit should be diving into the September 11 talk page and asking why nobody mentions conspiracies is, at best, unusual. "Brand new" accounts commenting here are, unfortunately, rather common: note the extensive number of blocked "new accounts" and IPs from the previous topics. HalfShadow 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Survey, in the interest of improving the article

Consensus seems clear, no need to continue discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As it presently stands, the article may appear to some readers to be weak on verifiable evidence which supports the official/mainstream story. If this is the case, it may be worthwhile to consider what could be done to strengthen the article; to make it more complete, verifiably accurate and convincing as viewed by its readers. So here are the questions in this three-part survey: (1) What, if anything, convinced you more than anything else that the official story of 9/11 is complete and correct as presented? (2) Is this convincing material currently in the article, and if not, is it available from reliable sources such that it could be added to the article? (3) If it is already in the article, but appears weak and difficult to verify, could it be strengthened to make it more clear and convincing? In responding, please try to be as specific as possible. Generalities may be difficult to interpret and act upon. I will break this survey into two sections: responses and discussion. Keeping the responses and the discussion separate should help make it possible to obtain a quick overview of the responses. Please keep the discussion civil and keep the focus on how the article might be improved. This survey is intended to be a search for solutions; not an opinion poll. I will start by offering the first response. My response is only intended to serve as a model in format, not in content. Wildbear (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Survey responses Response by Wildbear: (1) Nothing. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. Survey discussion It is not our place to state whether or not the mainstream account of what happened is true. We go by what reliable sources. Therefore, this poll is invalid. Soxwon (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC) There is much that reliable sources say which does not appear in this article. The article may appear unbalanced to many because, while there is a broad array of reliably sourced material available, the material selected may be among the less verifiable and convincing. The purpose of this survey is to gauge whether or not that is the case, in the view of those participating in the survey. If there is better material available from reliable sources which could be used, which would lend a greater sense of validity and accuracy to the article, it is reasonable to discuss the possibility of using it. Wildbear (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) So, in other words, you are arguing that we should try to make the mainstream account more convincing? Soxwon (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I worded it that way; and given your feedback, I realize that I should not have. My desire and intent is to make what is presented in the article more convincing. Since what is presented in the article is pretty much entirely the mainstream account, I worded it that way. I should have chosen different wording; but the intent is effectively the same. Given the importance of the topic, readers should not find themselves shaking their heads in disbelief when reading the article; and I'm sure that many are doing just that. If the article can be improved in this regard (using reliable sourcing), I think it should be. It doesn't matter to me what the article contains, as long as it comes across as credible, verifiable, believable, and neutral in point of view. Wildbear (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC) In other words, you believe we should bend to the vocal minority of Truthers who believe that the article isn't balanced. I figured as much, but was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. No, we should not give credence to WP:FRINGE theories and ideas. If you believe that editors are shaking their heads in disbelief that's fine. I, however, have not seen this same phenomena, save for a very persistent sock and multiple drive-by truthers. Please don't use your erroneous beliefs to try and push conspiracy theories and change what consensus has dictated. Soxwon (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) @Wildbear then fix it, if there are things WP:RS are saying then We might as well repeat them as long as things are Given due weight. Right now it looks pretty neutral to me and well sourced so I am skeptical much could be added. Worse case scenerio is WP:BRDThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Hello ResidentAnthropologist, and thank you for your reasonable feedback. Here is the issue: it is routinely claimed that little or no doubt exists that the material covered by this article is generally correct as presented. Perhaps this is true, and if it is true, great, no problem; it would mean that Wikipedia editors have done their job. The existing contentiousness, both within this talk page and in the outside world, suggests that there may be room for improvement. I can't fix it since I haven't found the sources to do so, despite spending hours every day poring through numerous mainstream and alternative sources for information on the topic. The article appears deficient with no easy means to fix it. Perhaps others have seen something that I haven't. If they have, it might account for the strength of their conviction that the article is basically complete and correct. I would really like to see what they have seen, since I would like to have the same feeling of confidence that the article is well-written as it stands. If they do have the sourcing that I may have missed (and I'm pretty confident that I have missed some critical sourcing) I'm asking them to please put it forward. Doing so could potentially help many readers feel more confident that Wikipedia has written this article to suitably high standards. Wildbear (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The usuals here see no problem; and I agree with them. But even if every statement here was cited by twenty citations from reliable sources... a number of therorists of would consider it still us to be part of the coverup. There is no pleasing them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I find the article to be neutral, well-presented, well-balanced, and reliably sourced -- pretty impressive actually considering the amount of noisy archives the talk page has. The recent disruptions on the article and talk page -- in my opinion, and based on almost six years experience as an admin -- are coming from a small number of persistent people that we would be best to ignore. Antandrus (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I endorse this comment entirely. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Soxwon (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC) indeed a very small number The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I'm generally against the idea of "surveys", as per WP:PNSD, and while in this case discussion does seem to have taken place, all we are doing is repeating discussion that has occured literally dozens of times already, and that is stated clearly in the FAQ at the top of this page. This article is not going to cover the conspiricy theories, and conspiricy theorists are never going to like that. Too bad. Rapier (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"official version"?

In the section on conspiracy theories, contrasting them with an "official version" of events misleadingly ignores what reporters and researchers in academia and elsewhere have concluded. It's basically a strawman appeal to peoples antigovernment sentiments, trying to present the conspiracy theorists as plucky underdogs standing up to the man. Thats not really appropriate in an encyclopedia article. It says right at the top of the page and in the rest of the article what happened and who did it, citing newspapers, books by professors and reporters, CNN, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.13.51 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. --Tarage (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he objects to the fact that the ridiculousness of conspiracy theories is made plain when shown side by side with the official events. Soxwon (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think the IP means that "official version" sounds weaselly, as if it's "just what the gubmint wants y'all to believe". (and as such, it gives unnecessary credence to conspiracy theorists.) S/he may have a point, but I can't think of a better wording. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but no other wording (than "official version") immediately comes to me either. Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "common", "standard, "accepted" or something? And I have to agree, "official" sounds too much like the decision of a Politburo when it's obviously not, but a narrative backed up by journalists, scientists as well as governmental reports. 92.76.143.59 (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Objective journalists do not "back up" a story. They provide coverage which is as complete and unbiased as possible, keeping their own viewpoints to a minimum, and for the most part, let the audience decide what conclusions it wishes to draw from the information provided. Wikipedia editors should be doing the same thing. As for scientists, those supporting the "official" story seem to mostly be those working under the benefits of government payroll, government contracts, or government grants. Where are the independent scientists who have thoroughly examined the official story from a scientific standpoint, and who publicly support it? And government reports... well, naturally those are going to support the official story. The authors likely have no practical choice on that matter, if careers are to be retained. The story looks pretty "official" in its entire basis to me. Wildbear (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I find that statement absurd. "Mainstream" is the least degree of explaining that the theory is generally accepted in the real world that I would consider acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the term official story is too limiting. There is general acceptance of the version of events laid out in the article. That general acceptance goes way beyond official sources into those listed above (journalists, scientists, public opinion etc). I'd be fine with mainstream, or accepted...RxS (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with accepted, but I have a feeling that we would find ourselves under attack from Truthers if we were to actually suggest that scientific consensus really exists on the subject. Soxwon (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hell, the page is generally under attack by Truthers anyway, so... HalfShadow 21:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I like "official", for the reasons given by people in this thread. "Accepted" or even "standard" are fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point HalfShadow, I'll start making the changes here, and if they go unchallenged, we can spread them to other 9/11 articles. Soxwon (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be stated as fact...eliminate "official", "mainstream", "concensus view", etc. entirely...just write it as it is, not as the truthers think it should be. We don't bend to their whims and or accomodate the superstitions they propose.--MONGO 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I agree with that position, we can't simply act as though they don't exist. We have to at least acknowledge that a portion of the population doesn't believe the accepted version of events. Soxwon (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are fond of saying, "We say what reliable sources say." So I decided to do some searching (somewhat briefly) to see what phrase "reliable sources" use for this issue.

• "Mainstream story": nothing significant found.
• "Mainstream account":

Popular Mechanics: "They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11"

• "Official story/version/account/narrative":

dailymail.co.uk: "The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock"... "Or that's how the official story goes."

telegraph.co.uk: "...after it emerged that she doubted the official account of the September 11 attacks."

Los Angeles Times: "A society of nonbelievers questions the official version"... "...not everybody buys the official narrative of what took place on Sept. 11, 2001".

These mainstream sources don't seem perturbed by using "official" in referencing the account. Feel free to search for more examples of any form of phrasing. Wildbear (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And there are loads of other mainstream sources that are just as happy using the term accepted version. For reasons noted above, the word official has issues other than how many sources use it. RxS (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but consider the context. Those are all sources about 9/11 conspiracy theories. You're extremely unlikely to find any of those terms in articles about 9/11 itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm open to suggestions. We have to move away from the word official though. RxS (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a summary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How about simply that? "9/11 Terrorist attacks" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Using "9/11 Terrorist attacks" is better than using "accepted"; as using "accepted" is likely to appear insulting and disingenuous for the large number of people who have doubts about the completeness and accuracy of the mainstream story. Quoting TIME, "A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."(ref) That reliably sourced report would appear to contradict "acceptance" of the story by the general population. If by "accepted" you mean that the corporate media and/or some other entity accepts the government's story, and if "accepted" must remain in the text (I don't think that it should), then the qualifier as to who accepts the story should be added. Better, though, (and more neutral) to just use AQFK's suggestion. Wildbear (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That 36% is lower than the number of Americans who don't believe in evolution, and very much lower than the number of Americans who think the US government is hiding evidence of extra terrestrial visitation. Just as with the climate change leaks, I'm sure that the complete lack of evidence in the wikileaks transcripts for a conspiracy will not deter die-hard believers. It probably reinforces the beliefs. Such issues are of interest in other articles, but for people wanting to look at reliable accounts of what happened, treating such beliefs as substantially founded misleads them and is against policy on wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You speak much of "belief" and "believers", but belief is not really relevant here. People can believe the official story, or not. People can believe conspiracy theories, or not. They can believe that there simply isn't enough information to make an informed judgment. The issue is acceptance (or not). If numerous people do not fully accept that the given account is complete and accurate, then it is misleading to imply that they do. The Wikipedia term for this kind of misleading verbiage is weasel words, and considered inappropriate. Wildbear (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Accepted by reliable sources. I love how once again you inject polls into this. It's like you are plugging your ears every time we bring this up. Do tell me, how does it feel to never get your way? --Tarage (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If by "accepted" it means "accepted by reliable sources", then it should add a qualifier to avoid misinterpretation. When I see "accepted" as it is used here, my immediate impression is that it means everyone accepts it. Am I alone in that interpretation? If the correct interpretation is unclear to the reader, then it constitutes weasel word usage. As for how I feel, it doesn't matter. The article presents a very imbalanced view with respect to what we know about 9/11 history from reliable sources. I will continue to work toward historical accuracy, balance, and reliable sourcing, working cooperatively with other editors and without concern for the insults which get hurled at me. I dislike conspiracy theory with a passion. I have no interest in seeing conspiracy theory in this or any other article, except for the minimum necessary to acknowledge that it exists. I am only interested in accurate, factual, verifiable, reliably sourced documentation. Wildbear (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article is built from reliable sources and paints the mainstream (non-fringe) view of the events as understood by mainstream media, experts working in their field etc. So no, it's not unbalanced. Your view of reliable sources seems to be built on a foundation of public polling (published, I might add, by news operations that don't report CT as anything but a cultural phenomenon). RxS (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I used the polling reference because it seemed directly relevant to the degree of acceptance by the general population. It may have little or no relevance to the rest of the article, and I wouldn't refer to it except in an instance (such as this one) where it appears to be relevant. The article is reliably sourced. My argument that it is unbalanced comes from a perception that it has cherry-picked from reliable sources to present a narrow POV; narrower than the sources themselves have presented. For example: it has no mention of the topic of air defenses and the FAA; a significant part of the story. It has no coverage of the resistance to investigation by the Bush administration; which was quite extensive, notable, and reliably sourced. In contrast to these missing elements, it has a quite lengthy section on "Attackers and their background", which goes into considerable detail. I entered a small section on the resistance to investigation; notable and reliably sourced by the mainstream media; it was deleted without much of an explanation being given. If you still think that it's balanced, then we may just have to agree to disagree. Wildbear (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

re "Objective journalists do not "back up" a story." Oh, naturally. Clearly these people investigating and finding the conspiracy theories are bunk will be construed as further suport for the theory. Thats how conspiracy theories work. Conclusions contrary to the theory are more proof of conspiracy. "The feds got to him, and him, and too! Or else the bastards are in on it. After all, dont all those professors students rely on federal money to pay for college, and so fund the profs salary?" What crap! I wonder someone hasnt claimed the investigators and reporters were Jooz, JOOZ, I tell ya! or that the federal reserve bank did it to destroy records of their currency manipulation. Bring back the gold standard! Anyway, "accepted" is okay. Thanks to the grownups for changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.13.51 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wildbear, popular belief that 9/11 was an inside job is less widespread than belief that evolution is not true. What adjective would you use to describe evolutionary theory? Is it not "accepted"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an good example, VsevolodKrolikov. For the usage of "accepted" that we are discussing here, if someone does not "accept" the mainstream 9/11 story, that does not necessarily imply that they think that it's an inside job. There is a very broad spectrum of viewpoints on this issue, ranging from complete acceptance, to concerns over minor issues, to concerns over unanswered questions, to strong suspicions of wrongdoing, to full-blown conspiracy fanaticism. If complete, or nearly complete, acceptance of mainstream account accuracy is intended by the term "accepted", then more than half of the population may fail the "accepted" criteria. Evolutionary theory, as far as I am aware, is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, and could be accurately qualified as such. It's not accepted, as far as I am aware, by the majority of the U.S. population. (I'm not familiar with it's degree of acceptance in other countries.) For this reason, I would readily concede to qualifying who accepts evolutionary theory, even though, from the scientific standpoint, there is little doubt as to its accuracy. Such qualification should only appear once in an article, and "accepted" should not be used again without that qualification (to use it again would appear to be arrogantly rubbing it in to those who don't "accept".) The same considerations should apply on the 9/11 topics. Wildbear (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The "mainstream" view also is actually a diversity of views on causes, organisations and even the fall of the towers themselves. Could you be clear on where you think the boundary lies? By the way, I don't think you've got the point about evolution. You segueway from "vast majority of the scientific community" on evolution to "the majority of the US population" regarding 9/11 (why only U.S. anyway?). The US population is not expert in this. Evolution, alien abduction etc. etc. are examples of how we don't use popular belief to talk about acceptance of facts. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem; there are no boundaries. You said it very well: "The "mainstream" view also is actually a diversity of views on causes, organisations and even the fall of the towers themselves." The whole topic is fuzzy without clear consensus on many of its issues; and it can be argued that this is a result of inadequate investigation. (Some additional investigation by authoritative entities could clear this up and lay many unanswered questions to rest.) Hence I request caution and consideration when using a very assertive term like "accepted". On your next question, there was no intended segue. My statement, "It's not accepted, as far as I am aware, by the majority of the U.S. population." was referring to evolution theory, not 9/11. I referred to the U.S. population because I am not at all familiar with population viewpoints on evolution theory in other countries. On your last sentence, is it even necessary to state acceptance of facts if no qualifications are given? Why not just state the facts and leave out discussion of acceptance, if the acceptance discussion is not to be specific? Wildbear (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, we DO state the facts. The fact is, there is a mountain of reliable sources that state what the article currently states. To do the edit you wish would be adding POV that the reliable sources do NOT use. Somehow I don't think you will ever understand this, and I'm getting more than a wee bit sick of trying to explain it to you over and over again. If you don't give it up, I will file an ArbCom again. Enough is enough. --Tarage (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wildbear, as far as I and I think almost everyone else understands it, what distinguishes the mainstream from fringe conspiracy is for the latter a belief in witting US government complicity in the attacks - either in active planning (ranging from preparing buildings lined with explosives (WT7) to the projection of 3D holograms in the sky), or in deliberately acquiescing in attacks they knew were going to happen. In other words, the fringe and conspiracy theorists refuse to believe that the attacks were genuinely the result of small terrorist cells in a country far away planning and executing the flight of large commercial liners into buildings without specific assistance from the US government. That is the bright line. Any talk of diversity of views on either side of the bright line is neither here nor there. I'll repeat the point I made above, accepted does not mean "90% of anyone believes it". It is accepted by people whose specific job and responsibility it is to analyse - analysts, specialists, academics and so on. The usual tawdry crowd producing reliable sources for wikipedia to use.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jsevic, 5 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I am curious as to why the religious affiliation of the attackers is not mentioned? Jsevic (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It says Al-Qaida, it has a link. Not done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand the link. Nevertheless it's not the same. As an example, to why I am curious, in the same paragraph the author modifies that The American Spectator as the "conservative" American Spectator. Why is this American Spectator conservative but the attackers not described as Muslims, when in fact they are. It would seem to be a significant part of their description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would guess it's because there's is a difference between linking "conservative" to a magazine and linking "Muslim" to mass-murder. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Stating the religious affiliation of the 9-11 attackers is not the same as linking Muslims to mass murder. That all Muslims are linked to mass murder does not logically follow from the 9-11 attackers being Muslim, correct? I believe you have the logic wrong.

I also find it unusual that, in spite of this fact, there's an entire paragraph devoted to alleged hate-crimes against Muslims, which would seem to have little to do with terror attacks in general, and 9-11 in particular, would it not. Should this section not be moved to its own section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm... let's wait for someone else to respond; I've never contributed to this article, so I don't know the exact rationales. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. To further my point regarding my perception about inconsistency, I attach this link - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan - which identifies Christianity with the KKK. In this Wikipedia page it is asserted (and supported by one reference) that the KKK is a Christian-based terrorist organization. It would seem that the standard you apply above in rejecting my request for stating the religious affiliation of the 9-11 attackers is not the same standard being applied to that of the entry on the KKK regarding its religious affiliation or leanings. Not all Christians are mass murders, as you say.

Thanks for your reply; let's see what else comes up viz responses.Jsevic (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the KKK article says is of course a WP:otherstuffexists point. That said, I'd much rather prefer Islamist to Muslim if there is going to be a reference.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the attackers are (were) Muslim. That this is a fact is indisputable. Why should we not include this information, particularly in light of the numerous references to religious affiliation in Wiki regarding people, living and dead?Jsevic (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should we? They were Al-Qaida, first and foremost. Soxwon (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

From first principles I would tend to agree with your view. However, Wiki authorship seems to have a propensity for describing religious affiliation and sexual orientation. Further to my simple example, what does Christianity have to with the KKK? If the standards applied for including Christianity in the description of the KKK, even for historical completeness, then surely the same standard must be applied here, even for historical completeness. And then there's the fact that the men were, indeed, Muslim, and Wiki is about reporting facts, is it not?Jsevic (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just checked. The KKK stuff doesn't link to Christian, it links to Christian terrorism, somehow the equivalent of Al-Qaida. This leaves it up to the reader to interpret in both cases in what way the people in question are affiliated with the religion; FWIW, I read it as, "the KKK abuses Christianity/claims to be Christian/isn't Christian, but says it is". I would object to linking the KKK to Christianity. Same goes for Al-Qaida vis-a-vis Islam. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to step back from my first line of attack, loosely based on relativism. The facts are that the terrorists were Muslim. Someone needs to explain to me why, given this is a fact, this information is not included. Someone also needs to explain why there's a paragraph on Muslim hate-crimes in this section. Let's start from there.Jsevic (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The terrorists were Muslim, yes, but more importantly they were Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida has implications of being Muslim, and are the more specific classification. Would you not agree that the more specific classification is better? The reason there is a paragraph on Muslim hate-crimes is because, sadly, there were some. Since, as you deftly pointed out, the attackers were Muslim, and since the more specific classification of Al-Qaida was not as available to attack, some people went up a level. I tried to explain the above as if it was an animal classification, so sorry if it's confusing. --Tarage (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Having had a look around our pages referring to Christian terrorist groups, they don't talk about terrorists as "Christian" in the general way Jsevic appears to want to label these terrorists as Muslim. I know that's a WP:otherstuffexists argument, but it does suggest that we're not being unusually precious about matters here by avoiding such a label. There does not appear to be any kind of systemic bias towards Islam in this instance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so two replies here. To the first, identifying the terrorists as Al-Qaida so far appears to arbitrary, insofar that you have not given a sound logical reason for classifying the terrorists as such. They are also Muslim, and this is a fact, and Wiki is about reporting facts, it is not? So there needs to be a systematically consistent and rigorous standard applied, especially as what was stated in the second comment. As a segue into the second point, it was stated that "... sadly, there were some..." So, evidently it's all right to include a paragraph on hate-crimes against Muslims, because the terrorists were, in fact Muslims, but it's not OK to label the terrorists as Muslims. Using this logical standard, the appropriate classification would be Hate-Crimes Against Al-Qaida, or, alternatively, the hate crimes section needs to be moved, since this section is about terror attacks and Al Qaida. Being Muslim should have nothing to do with this page, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsevic (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We want our categorisation of the attackers to be accurate, but we also want it to be precise. (It is also a fact that the attackers were humans, that they lived on Earth, and that they had biochemistry based on carbon, but including these facts in the article would be ludicrous.) Yes the attackers were Muslim, but categorising them as al-Qaeda is more precise, since al-Qaeda are Muslims but most Muslims have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. If the reader doesn't know who al-Qaeda are they can click on the link and find out. Hut 8.5 14:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FIRE DMG

It seems fire is more effective at imploding buildings than explosives are if we look at the collapse of the WTC. Maybe demolitions contractors should use fire instead of explosives.

9/11 Ins!de Job Status

Belligerents should be switched from Bin Laden to "Most Defiantly an Ins!de Job" due to the discoveries I made with my own original research. Grenada04 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)