Misplaced Pages

Talk:September 11 attacks: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:55, 18 August 2014 editSupernovaPhoenix (talk | contribs)301 edits →Conspiracy Theories: suggested change to wording according to feedback← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:25, 22 January 2025 edit undoWin8x (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,655 edits Reverted 1 edit by 2607:FEA8:28E0:1100:2C8E:2D14:60A7:A2C6 (talk): UnconstructiveTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=B}}
{{Calm}}
{{pbneutral}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{FAQ}} {{FAQ}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history|action1=RBP {{Article history|action1=RBP
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |action1date=January 19, 2004
Line 111: Line 109:
|action18oldid=556498139 |action18oldid=556498139


|action19=GAN
|topic=History
|action19date=July 13, 2015
|currentstatus=FFA
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5
|action19result=promoted
|action19oldid=671152132

|topic=World history
|currentstatus=GA
|action20 = FAC
|action20date = 2018-10-27
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2
|action20result = failed
|action20oldid = 865779234

|otd1date=2003-09-11
|otd1oldid=1418792

|otd2date=2004-09-11
|otd2oldid=9955831

|otd3date=2005-09-11
|otd3oldid=23006719

|otd4date=2006-09-11
|otd4oldid=75188318

|otd5date=2009-09-11
|otd5oldid=313246231

|otd6date=2012-09-11
|otd6oldid=511650593

|otd7date=2013-09-11
|otd7oldid=572507707

|otd8date=2017-09-11
|otd8oldid=800113517

|otd9date=2018-09-11
|otd9oldid=859078369

|otd10date=2020-09-11
|otd10oldid=977871368

|otd11date=2023-09-11
|otd11oldid=1174521963

|itn1date=2001-09-11

|itn2date=2002-09-11
|otd12date=2024-09-11|otd12oldid=1245107774
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1=
{{FailedGA|01:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)|topic=World History|page=4}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}}
{{On this day|date1=2004-09-11|oldid1=9955831|date2=2005-09-11|oldid2=23006719|date3=2006-09-11|oldid3=75188318|date4=2009-09-11|oldid4=313246231|date5=2012-09-11|oldid5=511650593|date6=2013-09-11|oldid6=572507707}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes| 1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=Top|listas=September 11 attacks}} {{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject New York|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top|class=B}} {{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=yes}}
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Intel=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B {{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}}
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}}
|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = yes
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}}
|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = yes
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}}
|B3 <!-- Structure --> = yes
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = yes
|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = yes
|US=yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=History|WPCD=yes|importance=high}}
{{Misplaced Pages CD selection|class=B}}
}} }}
{{press {{Press
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ | title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’
| author = Noam Cohen | author = Noam Cohen
Line 143: Line 186:
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html
| org = ] | org = ]

| author2 = Brian Keegan
| title2 = How 9/11 Shaped Misplaced Pages
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/wikipedia-september-11-breaking-news.html
| date2 = November 17, 2020
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 = September 9, 2021

| author3 = Stephen Harrison
| title3 = How Misplaced Pages Grew Up With the War on Terror
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-september-11-20th-anniversary.html
| date3 = September 8, 2021
| quote3 =
| archiveurl3 =
| archivedate3 =
| accessdate3 = September 9, 2021
| author4 = Alex Pasternack
| title4 = How 9/11 turned a new site called Misplaced Pages into history’s crowdsourced front page
| org4 = ]
| url4 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90674998/how-9-11-turned-a-new-site-called-wikipedia-into-historys-crowdsourced-front-page
| date4 = September 11, 2021
| quote4 =
| archiveurl4 =
| archivedate4 =
| accessdate4 = September 13, 2021
}} }}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=tpm|consensus-required=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}<br>__TOC__
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<!--{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}}-->
{{pp-move-indef}} {{pp-move-indef}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|

{{All time pageviews|89}}
{{Annual report|]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 8 2013|Sep 7 2014|Sep 6 2015|Sep 4 2016|Sep 11 2016|Sep 10 2017|Sep 9 2018|Sep 8 2019|Sep 6 2020|Sep 13 2020|Aug 29 2021|until|Sep 12 2021|Sep 8 2024}}
<!-- {{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}} -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}}
{{September 11 arbcom}}

{{Old moves|list= {{Old moves|list=
*RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ] * RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Moved''', 17 January 2004, ]
*RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ] * RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, '''Not moved''', 21 October 2004, ]
*RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ] <!--Later, ]--> * RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, '''Not moved''', 14 February 2021, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Procedural close''', 23 February 2021, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ]
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ].
|collapse=yes}} |collapse=yes}}
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}}
{{Auto archiving notice|age=30
{{Merged-from|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks|date=22 October 2015}}<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slogans_and_terms_derived_from_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=687019474 -->
|index=./Archive index
{{section sizes}}
|bot=MiszaBot
}}
|small=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index
Line 172: Line 249:
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archives
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|search=yes
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|auto=short
|counter = 64
|collapsible=yes
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Featured article tools}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{clear}}

== 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? ] (]) 04:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:WTC 1 was destroyed in the attacks. The reasons WTC collapsed are discussed in more depth at ]. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

:::It's WTC 1, which was destroyed. The twin towers were WTC 1 and WTC2. Note that ] and ] have since been built, you may be confusing the new building with the old. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

::::i guess one of the maps may be incorrect: so there is a building in between wtc1 and wtc7. how come it is not destroyed? ] (]) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Ehm, do you mean ]? It seems to be the building between WTC1 and WTC7. And it also seems to have been destroyed on 9/11. ] (]) 18:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


::::::thanks! that answers the question.. because mostly twins and wtc7 are mentioned in discussions... ] (]) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

==Conspiracy theories==

{{collapse top|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 ] article and even an article describing how many people believe these (])). I ask whether these should be covered in this article in further detail, assuming it is done properly and neutrally.
*'''Part 1:''' Should a new section be placed in the article that explains the presence of these conspiracy theories, describes some of the more common ones and assesses their popularities and reputations?
*'''Part 2:''' Should a short sentence be placed in the lead to say that conspiracy theories exist?
As an example, the article ] includes both a section corresponding to Part 1 and a sentence in the lead corresponding to Part 2. ] (]) 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''. ] (]) 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

===Response to part 1===

===Response to part 2===

=== Threaded discussion ===
No, the single sentence in the article as of is plenty. See also the FAQ and the (extensive) talk page archives. ] (]) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:Talk page archives show constant objections from users.. quite a few users desire more mention of these alternatives opinions. For example, placing it under 'cultural' section was objected, then not mentioning the deception from certain government organizations which caused Congress to consider filing criminal charges, etc.. and this being one of the reasons for alternative views to be strengthened, etc... many many objections... ] (]) 16:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::This article deals with facts not fantasies. We have the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles which deal with the fantasies.--] 16:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:::@71.194.230.179: Yes, but by people who don't understand our policy on ]. To give ] to wild, conspiracy theories is a violation of NPOV. ] (]) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

::::]? Oh, , you are right, it must be a fantasy. :P ] (]) 16:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

::::Violation of NPOV is ignoring the views of nearly half of population, and all the facts that don't go along the mainstream view presented in the article. ] (]) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

::::Speaking of policies, why is ] being violated here? ] (]) 17:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::We provide coverage based on reliable sources and subject to our policy on ], not poll results. Why do you think SUBPOV is being violated? ] (]) 18:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::Why do you think what was quoted above is unreliable or fringe? Your comment makes no sense. ] (]) 22:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::: VQuak's comment is quite clear. Misplaced Pages relies on confirmed sources, not polls or conspiracy theories. ] (]) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

::::::::There are many confirmed sources on disagreeing facts (i.e. those linked above) as well as conspiracy theories. In regards to polls, I thought that that was one way of figuring out what ] is: Mainstream is the common current thought of the majority. Nobody here talks about inclusion of information from unconfirmed 'conspiracy theories', but only of inclusion of verified and well written about topics. Why is it that some users fail to observe this distinction? ] (]) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

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[REDACTED] policies on ] and ]. 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[REDACTED] article. ] (]) 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:That's because there is no level of support from sane historians or sane scientists. Of course there are the Wackos and Charlatans for dah "truth"...um.--] 11:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:: um... your biased position has been made clear: any scientist who agrees with your personal beliefs is "sane" and any scientist that disagrees is a "Wacko" without regard for their actual status, such as having a prominent position in a major university.
::When we actually take an objective look at the existing literature, we find that there are several peer-reviewed articles/letters published in scientific/engineering journals that lend credence to various aspects (but certainly not all) of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.<ref>Manwell, Laurie A. "In denial of Democracy: Social psychological implications for public discourse on state crimes against democracy post-9/11." American behavioral scientist 53.6 (2010): 848-884.</ref><ref>Ryan, Kevin R., James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones. "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials." The Environmentalist 29.1 (2009): 56-63.</ref><ref>Grabbe, Crockett. "Discussion of “Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by KA Seffen." Journal of engineering mechanics 136.4 (2010): 538-539.</ref><ref>Harrit, Niels H., et al. "Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe." Open Chemical Physics Journal 2 (2009): 7-31.</ref><ref>Jones, Steven E., et al. "Fourteen points of agreement with official government reports on the World Trade Center destruction." Open Civil Engineering Journal 2.1 (2008): 35-40.</ref> But I am not here to argue the strength/weaknesses of these theories. I am here to state emphatically that given this level of professional involvement, one sentence is simply ''not'' enough coverage in an article of this length. Allow me to quote from the first source: "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections." ] (]) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:::We already have an article that talks about the insane ramblings of terminated professors....its. called ] and that's not the only article we have to examine their opinions. We link to that article from this one....that's food enough. You conspiracy theory POV pushers are never happy...you always want more of your nonsense in the article.--] 17:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Excuse me, but I am ''not'' here to "push a POV" -- unlike yourself, I have avoided stating my personal opinion as to the validity of the conspiracy theories, and have relied upon ] instead to make my point that they deserve more than a single sentence mention. I noticed that you completely ignored the quote I posted about hundreds of professionals, officials, and academics questioning the official story of 9/11. Here's four more peer-reviewed publications that research aspects of the "conspiracy theory".<ref>Szuladziński, Gregory, Anthony Szamboti, and Richard Johns. "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis." International Journal of Protective Structures 4.2 (2013): 117-126.</ref><ref>Grabbe, Crockett. "Discussion of “Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth” by Jia-Liang Le and ZP Bazant." Journal of Engineering Mechanics: 1298-1300.</ref><ref>Björkman, Anders. "Discussion of “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?” by Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson." Journal of engineering mechanics 136.7 (2010): 933-934.</ref><ref>Poteshman, Allen M. "Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001*." The Journal of Business 79.4 (2006): 1703-1726.</ref> ] (]) 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::The Bentham nano-thermite letter (it was not an article) has been rejected many times, and Bentham is looked upon with great skepticism in Misplaced Pages at large. The nano-thermite argument remains a fringe topic taken seriously only within the Truther echo chamber and has no place in this article. The Manwell paper, according to its abstract, as about discourse in public policy relating to state crimes, and as far as I can tell doesn't revolve around 9/11 conspiracy theories. While fringe elements in academia and some professions have endorsed conspiracy theories, they do not represent a significant view and are not taken seriously by mainstream media, their parent institutions or their professional organizations. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 18:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::Totally agree with Acroterion's comments above and also MONGO's contribution. This article deals with facts and not conspiracy theories. ] (]) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::::About the Harrit et al paper - when you stated it "has been rejected many times", why did you not provide any sources to verify the validity of these rejections and why do you think a rejection of a single paper makes the topic of 9/11 conspiracy irrelevant? "Bentham is looked upon with great skepticism in Misplaced Pages at large." And if Bentham was the only publisher represented in the '''nine''' excellent sources I provided, you might have a point. However, only two of the sources were published by Bentham. Look closer at the Manwell paper, it portrays 9/11 as a possible state crime against democracy right there in the abstract, and the full text can be found through google Scholar. What about the incredibly relevant quote I posted from it that so far all three of you have ignored?
:::::::In conclusion, I have gathered several disparate sources that together make a strong case that there is substantial professional debate on the subject, therefore making the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories deserving of it's own sub-section in this article. I gladly welcome sources to the contrary, but thus far all criticisms of my stance have ranged from the unsourced to outright ad hominem attacks. ] (]) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}

:::::::::"Sources to verify the validity of its rejection" amounts to asking for proof of a negative: the talkpage archives discuss the issue at great length, with the conclusion that is is an interesting mention of a fringe theory that has been inflated by conspiracy enthusiasts into a "peer reviewed paper", which it is not. The abstract I saw of Manwell didn't even mention 9/11, and it doesn't appear from what I saw that acceptance of a conspiracy theory is central to that publications content. Bazant et al are no friends of the conspiracy theorists, the Szuladziński et al paper is simply a critique of Bazant and not an endorsement of conspiracy theories, the Poteshman insider trading is discussed and at ] and rejected by the 9/11 Commission as explained. The sources you've produced either reject conspiracy theories or give them scant mention, apart from the Bentham letter, whose "nano-thermite" has itself been disputed as indistinguishable from normal oxide primer. The common thread in all of the conspiracy theories (and this is a classic feature of any such theory, not just 9/11) is cherry-picking inconsistencies and granting them undue prominence, or of extensive ]. There is no coherent narrative to any of this, and no support in credible academic or journalism sources. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 20:31, 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.
*Harrit et al - I see that you are referencing the consensus on the wiki about the paper, so I accept that it is currently not considered a reliable source for this article.
*Manwell - is the link to the journal listing. Specifically, the abstract states "Terror management theory and system justification theory are used to explain how preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq." Later on in the article, they state "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections."
*Bazant - I absolutely agree with you that "Bazant et al are no friends of the conspiracy theorists", and that's why I think it is significant that three separate authors have published discussions critical of his work in the same journal (JEM) in which he published his famous paper on the collapse of the Twin Towers (Gourley<ref>Gourley, James R. "Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenĕk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure." Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134.10 (2008): 915-916.</ref>(not listed above),Grabbe,Bjorkman). And it is significant that a full paper was published in a separate journal that, as you said, was also critical of Bazant's work (Szuladziński).
*I listed the Poteshman paper because insider trading is ] and more recent research has come to similar conclusions.<ref>Wong, Wing-Keung, Howard E. Thompson, and Kweehong Teh. "Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?." Available at SSRN 1588523 (2010).</ref> ] (]) 22:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::So, in effect, it's some vague allusions you've pulled from an abstract and papers that ignore or dismiss the conspiracy theories (criticism of Bazant is not acceptance of CT), as support for ''inclusion'' of a CT discussion in the article, despite minimal sourcing and nonexistent support from scholarly and journalism sources? '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

*'''Support''' adding 2-3 paragraph section on the conspiracy theories and it looks like we have sufficient support for the addition. I would suggest posting your proposed text here, and we can tweak before adding it to the article. ] (]) 22:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you Cla68, I will write something up and post it on the talk page for feedback.] (]) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:If by "sufficient support" you mean high-quality references, there's a long way to go. Specifically, the often-asserted claim that AE 9/11 is something other than a fringe group is countered by this in . The ''Guardian'', hardly a friend of the US government, has this , which also mentions the refutation of the insider trading rumor. Where the mainstream media (which we depend on to establish weight) notices 9/11 conspiracies at all, that example and this companion to the ''Guardian'' piece , which uses the word "preposterous", are typical examples. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Cla68}} This is the wrong place to hold this discussion. Even if there was ] for this suggestion, it would be completely meaningless until ] were changed. I suggest that you open an ] and lobby to have NPOV changed. After you've convinced the community to change this policy, then come back and talk to us. Until then, this suggestion is completely meaningless. ] (]) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:::AQFK, I note that your objection is based on your interpretation of WP policy. You appear to be trying to use "]". I and a few others don't agree with you. Again, I welcome Smitty's proposed addition and we can comment on it. ] (]) 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

::::No, ] is very clear: "''If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. ''" We don't get to override policy just because we feel like it. If you don't like Misplaced Pages's rules and are unwilling to change them, then please feel free to fork the project. ] (]) 22:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

*''' Strongly Oppose''' There is no consensus for adding conspiracy theories to this article. There is already a article for these ramblings and that is where such "theories" should stay. ] (]) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

*{{ping|Smitty121981}} Allow me to fully quote from your first source:
{{quotation|In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections.<sup>4</sup> Most recently, Brigham Young University physics Professor Steven Jones, who was forced into early retirement for his work analyzing World Trade Center (WTC) dust for evidence of thermite residue, an explosive used in controlled demolition, published several articles with his colleagues—in the Open Civil Engineering Journal, the Environmentalist, and the Open Chemical Physics Journal—countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses and findings of chemical energetic materials in the recovered debris (Harrit et al., 2009; Jones, Legge, Ryan, Szamboti, & Gourley, 2008b; Ryan, Gourley, & Jones, 2008.)|pg. 857, {{ Cite journal| last1 = Manwell | first1 = L. A. | title = In denial of Democracy: Social psychological implications for public discourse on state crimes against democracy post-9/11 | doi = 10.1177/0002764209353279 | journal = American behavioral scientist | volume = 53 | issue = 6 | pages = 848-884 | year = 2010 | url = http://911.lege.net/ABS53N62010/In_Denial_of_Democracy-Social_Psychological_Implications_for_Public_Discourse_on_State_Crimes_Against_Democracy_Post-9-11.pdf}}}}

:And Manwell's sources are... ''(drum roll)''... the website http://patriotsquestion911.com/, ]'s 2004 book ] (note 4, pg. 874, ), and, of course, the usual suspects of Jones, Ryan, Harrit, Gourley, Szamboti, etc ''(rimshot)''.

:The "discussion" comments by the non-qualified, non-specialists, Björkman, Gourley, Grabbe, and Szuladziński (yes, it's actually four) are best summed up with some quotes from the closures to those discussions:


== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all ==
{{quotation|Closure to {{doi-inline|10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000139|Björkman}}:
{{hattop|]. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)}}
* The discusser's interest is appreciated. However, he presents no meaningful mechanics argument against the gravity driven progressive collapse model of our paper. His claim that "the authors' theory is wrong" is groundless.
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.
* The discusser claims that no differential equations are required to model the collapse. This is incorrect.
* The discusser claims that the progressive collapse model we developed in the paper does not consider the energy required to compress the rubble. This claim is absurd.
* The discusser further claims that, for the continuation of the crush-down phase, the columns in the part C (upper part) must be assumed to be in contact with the columns of part A (lower part). This claim is erroneous.
* Based on the profile of the rubble pile shown in Fig. 3(b) of the paper, the discusser estimates the rubble density to have an unrealistic value (3.075 t/m<sup>3</sup>). Since this figure is only schematic, his point is meaningless.


But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
Closure to {{doi-inline|10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(917)|Gourley}}:
* The interdisciplinary interests of Gourley, a chemical engineer with a doctorate in jurisprudence, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser's criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering. It also provides an opportunity to rebut a previous similar discussion widely circulated on the Internet, co-authored by S. E. Jones, Associate Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University and a cold fusion specialist.
* Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information.


I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Closure to {{doi-inline|10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000362|Grabbe}}:
* The discusser's interest is appreciated. However, his objections against the analysis of gravity-driven progressive collapse of the Word Trade Center (WTC) towers by have no scientific merit,
* It is surprising to see that references to online postings and an online journal not subjected to mechanics reviewing are cited as evidence. A further problem of discussion is that it is written without the use of the standard simplifying hypotheses of structural mechanics, which make the structural analysis feasible, are justified by vast experience, and represent the essential content of structural mechanics courses and textbooks. The discusser's objections to the gravity-driven collapse analysis presented in the original paper are invalid. His conclusion that "The analysis by Le and Bazant is incorrect" is groundless.


:Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Closure to {{doi-inline|10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(917)|Szuladzinski}}:
::Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.
* The interest of Szuladzinski, a specialist in homeland security, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect,
::The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.
* Although closing comments similar to those in the preceding discussion could be repeated, let it suffice to say that the discusser's conclusion that "the motion will be arrested during the damaged story collapse and the building will stand" is incorrect.<br />Thus, the recent allegations of controlled demolition are baseless.}}
::I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. ] (]) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:We go by what RS say we are not ] just to appease some people's feelings. ] (]) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hatbottom}}


== "]" listed at ] ==
:The claims made that the sources provided represent the gathering of {{!xt|"several disparate sources that together make a strong case that there is substantial professional debate on the subject, therefore making the topic of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories deserving of it's own sub-section in this article"}} is not supported. {{mdash}} ] (]) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
]
::Thanks for taking the time for the lengthy and constructive response. I am aware of the published rebuttals to the discussions, but this just further establishes that there ''is'' currently a professional debate(i.e. published in prominent engineering journal). Also, Manwell's interpretation of those sources passed peer-review. Please read my suggested change below, I think I worded it in a way that makes it clear why these references are applicable.] (]) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
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 ].
===Conspiracy Theories===
:''Further information: ]''


== "]" listed at ] ==
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon.<ref name="CBS_911ct">{{cite journal|title=9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop|first=Joshua|last=Norman|date=September 11, 2011|journal=CBS News|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/11/national/main20104377.shtml|publisher=CBS Corporation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=McGreal|first1=Chris|date=September 5, 2011|title=September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-conspiracy-theories|publisher=The Guardian|accessdate=13 August 2014}}</ref> Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of ] before the attack,<ref>Poteshman, Allen M. "Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001*." The Journal of Business 79.4 (2006): 1703-1726.</ref><ref>Wong, Wing-Keung, Howard E. Thompson, and Kweehong Teh. "Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?." Available at SSRN 1588523 (2010).</ref> that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials,<ref>Manwell, Laurie A. "In denial of Democracy: Social psychological implications for public discourse on state crimes against democracy post-9/11." American behavioral scientist 53.6 (2010): 848-884.</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth |publisher=C-SPAN |date=August 1, 2014 |url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth |accessdate=August 13, 2014}}</ref> and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced ].<ref>Szuladziński, Gregory, Anthony Szamboti, and Richard Johns. "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis." International Journal of Protective Structures 4.2 (2013): 117-126.</ref><ref>Grabbe, Crockett (2012). ”Discussion of “Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth” by Jia-Liang Le and Zdeněk P. Bažant.” J. Eng. Mech., 138(10), 1298–1300.</ref><ref>Björkman, Anders (2010). ”Discussion of “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?” by Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson.” J. Eng. Mech., 136(7), 933–934. </ref><ref>Grabbe, Crockett (2010). ”Discussion of “Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by K. A. Seffen.” J. Eng. Mech., 136(4), 538–539.</ref><ref>Gourley, James R. (2008). ”Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenĕk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure.” J. Eng. Mech., 134(10), 915–916.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |last=Editors |first=The |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 |title=Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report |magazine=Popular Mechanics |accessdate=August 13, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=McGreal |first1=Chris |date=September 5, 2011 |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked |title=9/11 conspiracy theories debunked |newspaper=The Guardian |accessdate=August 13, 2014}}</ref><ref name="CBS_911ct" /><ref>{{cite web |date=August 29, 2011 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14572054 |title=9/11 conspiracy theories |magazine=BBC Magazine |accessdate=August 13, 2014}}</ref>
]
{{reflist}}
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 terrorist attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:Your sources don't support the proposed text. "Despite their persistence..."? What? The only reason 9/11 conspiracy theories have not been accepted by the academic and scientific communities is because they are bullshit... you know... conspiracy theories. Thank you for wasting my time. {{mdash}} ] (]) 19:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
::Actually, "persistent" did come from the sources: and . However, I am certainly open to civil suggestions for improvement (no one asked you to spend any time here). ] (]) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The persistence of conspiracy theories is not related to their lack of acceptance by the academic and scientific communities. Conspiracy theories are rejected because they are incorrect, unsupported, and non-factual. {{mdash}} ] (]) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I will change the wording to be less open for interpretation.] (]) 13:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' including this nonsense. There's already a page for this junk, and it's not this one. This article is about facts, not fringe nonsense. '''] ]''' 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' above wording, as it does not make clear that these conspiracy theories are bollocks. More generally, I find it unlikely that I would be convinced that '''any''' expansion of coverage of CTs in this article was editorially favorable. ] (]) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose'''As I have previously stated above, there is already a page for these fringe theories, which have no place and need no reference in a factual article. ] (]) 20:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:: So far, the criticisms seem to be confusing notability for credibility. I am certainly aware that the article is about facts - that's what the 14 ] are for. Furthermore, my suggestion is not unwarranted: At the top of this talk page, it states "There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article" and the ] there is to expand the coverage of Conspiracy Theories: "I'd at least suggest that a paragraph or two be added to cover these; given the prevalence of these theories, it seems a shame to not really address them." ] (]) 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, as a group ] are notable. That is why we have an article about them. That does not mean that they are going to be covered in increased depth in ''this'' article. ] (]) 02:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. It's a good start on a paragraph, but the text shouldn't be in WP's voice. Instead of, "These theories are fueled, in part, by evidence of ] before the attack", it should say something like, "Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack," and so on. ] (]) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks so much for the helpful critique, the change has been made above. Do you have any suggestion on how to better word the "Despite their persistence" bit? I went through a lot of versions already as I was writing this and unfortunately that's the best I could come up with.] (]) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
*As ever, expanding on the conspiracy theories in this article would give undue weight to a fringe view. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
::It sounds like a lot of people's minds are made up before even looking at what I wrote? Please take the time to absorb the references, I think I established the notability. If not, could you please give constructive criticism on how to better establish it?] (]) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You want to see an expansion on the discussions of falsehoods in an article which discusses the known facts. You've already been shown that we already have entire articles dedicated to discussing those falsehoods...there isn't any reason to give undue weight to those falsehoods here.--] 11:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Can you point out any "falsehoods" in the text I wrote for inclusion? If so, I will gladly revise it. ], adding this one little section is all that stands in the way of Good Article status. Given this, I honestly cannot comprehend why most of the editors here are so vehemently opposed to the idea that they are willing to reject it without even taking the time to consider what I wrote. I know that 9/11 is emotional;[REDACTED] should not be. ] (]) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Good or Featured article "status" are subjective issues and neither mean a thing in the scheme of things. If the only thing standing between this article and getting that "status" is inclusion of preposterous fantasies concocted by those morons who refer to themselves as Architects and Engineers for truth then that "status" is not welcomed. We have taken (more then you deserve) the time to examine and address your points, but you fail to see that there isn't any support for your changes. In fact, it's pretty obvious that you have zero interest in article improvement....all you want is your conspiracy theory bullshit in the article.--] 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Well I'll be honest, I don't understand what all the "status" things mean. All I know is that what I am proposing is not 'bullshit', but is actually a suggestion for improvement on the top of this talk page, and I have been trying very hard to be civil about my approach (sorry if it wasn't). I did what I thought I should do, which is start a conversation here rather than modifying the article directly. A review of the discussion will show that I have listened to several editors who have made constructive criticisms, so clearly I am interested in article improvement. If a reasonable amount of time goes by and I do not receive enough support to make the change in the article, I will drop the subject - until then I have the right to civilly take part in the discussion. Some comments from editors here are sounding a lot like taking ]. ] (]) 20:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Cla68's comment concerning the use of Misplaced Pages's voice is correct. Apart from that, the paragraph gives undue weight to an inconsistent set of rumors and armchair theorizing described in mainstream sources as "preposterous." Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, doesn't give much weight to the preposterous, and really shouldn't give any. "Hundreds of professionals and officials" gives false standing to academics and professionals who have strayed outside their specific expertise to espouse easily disprovable fallacies. All professional fields have fringe enthusiasts. The trading rumors have long been disproved as unrelated and should not be discussed as if they are credible. It's long been my view that Misplaced Pages is too easygoing about granting even superficial credibility to conspiracy theories in general and the inclusion of fringe viewpoints in the name of a false balance, while the mutable nature of Misplaced Pages encourages people to try to make these theories become a ratified fact via a credulous account in Misplaced Pages. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you for the feedback. I like Cla68's new phrasing below, which revised the whole "hundreds..." bit, is that any better? Also, is there a ] about the trading rumors being disproved? I ask because two separate authors in two separate journals came to similar conclusions, and I know you already brought up the 9/11 Commission Report(2004) but it was published before either of those papers (2006,2010). The Guardian vaguely mentioned something about it, but not enough to follow up on, and Google didn't turn up anything for me either. ] (]) 05:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I found a third reliable source for the insider trading, in which the authors describe several "transactions on the CBOE which can be associated with informed trading activities" with 13 of them being "related to the terrorist attacks of September 11th"<ref>Chesney, Marc and Crameri, Remo and Mancini, Loriano, "Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets" (2010). Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 11-42. Pg. 6. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1522157</ref> ] (]) 20:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::You found an academic source that speculates using statistics: it postulates insider trading, against actual investigation of the trades that concluded that the acknowledged unusual trading was entirely unrelated. It's a good example of never letting the facts get in the way of one's thesis. From the 9/11 report: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades...", which the paper nevertheless attributes to foreknowledge. More to the point, it is a narrow discussion of the trading patterns, not of the conspiracy theory. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::::So there is one reliable source from 2004 that came to the conclusion that insider trading did ''not'' occur (9/11 Commission report). Then there are three later reliable sources (Poteshman 2006, Wong 2010, Chesney 2010), written by different authors and published in different journals, that all came to the conclusion that insider trading ''did'' occur. This shows, if nothing else, that there is legitimate controversy and it is not a settled matter. The 9/11 Commission Report, no matter how reliable, simply cannot 'erase' legitimate research that is completed years later. Plenty of sources include insider trading as part of the conspiracy theories, including The Guardian article which you provided. Maybe there is a different way to word the sentence so that it fits more with your line of thinking? ] (]) 07:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Actually, it can. The trades and traders were investigated and no link to the 9/11 conspiracy was found. Whether one can speculate using statistics is interesting, but statistical analysis and drawing speculative conclusions don't trump an actual investigation. The investigation flatly said there was no link between the trades and the event: the papers say that the trades ''look'' like they were linked, and ignore the fact that that was disproved by a criminal investigation. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 12:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Here is how I would word it: '''Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a wide-spread social phenomenon and have been embraced by a number of commentators, public officials, and celebrities. Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack and have criticized the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of a fire-induced progressive collapse. 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.''' ] (]) 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:: The policy problems with this are manifold, but ] and ] are a good start. {{mdash}} ] (]) 22:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:*'''Support.''' I like the new wording! Thanks! ] (]) 05:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 ==
*'''Oppose''' really the variety, type, and incredulity of the multitude of distinct CTs don't justify "widespread" description. Lumping all the the crackpots into a single box that they themselves oppose in order to gain a semblance of notability is improper use of how fringe views should be handled. Misplaced Pages cannot be the place where these dots are connected into monolithic view when they are really tiny fringe groups that all blame different groups. Combining Israel with Space Lasers to Thermite to WTC7 CTs and lumping them together to firm up the notion of "widespread" is misleading. We really have a number of CT's each with a tiny fringe that are unrelated to the other tiny fringe groups. Whence, none are widespread. --] (]) 07:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:: "Lumping all the the crackpots into a single box" was done for us, by the sources. It is our job as editors to report what the sources say, no to re-interpret them. Even the title of source 2 is "September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound". 'Abound' meaning "exist in large numbers or amounts." Are there any ] that suggest the 9/11 conspiracy theories are anything but wide-spread? ] (]) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::: The plural of "theories" is what abounds, not adherents that are credible sources for each of those theories. The people that believe are Barbara Olson was abducted by aliens is incredibly small and irrelevant. The internet is abound with hundreds of whacky theories but none have depth.. --] (]) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Here's a reliable source<ref>Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, "Conspiracy Theories" (Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers No. 199, 2008). PDF(accessed August 16, 2014)http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=public_law_and_legal_theory</ref> which states: "there is ample evidence that some conspiracy theories are not at all confined to small segments of the population. Overseas, 'a 2002 Gallup Poll conducted in nine Islamic countries found that 61 percent of those surveyed thought that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.' ... The widespread belief that U.S. officials knowingly allowed 9/11 to happen or even brought it about may have hampered the government’s efforts to mobilize social resources and political support for measures against future terrorist attacks." ] (]) 22:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
*'''Oppose''' Nobody takes these ] seriously within the context of 9/11 and neither should this article (see ] and ]). Misplaced Pages strives to be a respected encyclopedia, and devoting an entire section in this article to conspiracy theories just makes us look silly. That is not to say that conspiracy theories aren't a topic worthy of serious study, but this is not the right article or even the right field of study. 9/11 is ultimately a subtopic of ] which is a field studied by historians. 9/11 conspiracy theories is ultimately a subtopic of ] which is a field studied by psychologists. ] (]) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::{{replyto|A Quest For Knowledge}} Thanks for the feedback. The argument posed about being in the proper field of study is interesting. Certainly, psychology is a field that studies conspiracy theories. So is sociology. But some would say, so is history. In "Enemies Within The Culture of Conspiracy" published by Yale University Press, Robert A Goldberg makes the case that "conspiracism essential to an understanding of history and society" and in a lecture by the same name published by the Florida Atlantic University's Dept. of History , he states: {{quotation|I would like to talk about conspiracy thinking in recent American history; to talk about the who, how, and why of conspiracism. Particularly, I would like to spotlight the conspiracy theories that have emerged in the wake of the tragedy of 9-11. Befitting this lecture series, it speaks to a topic vital to an understanding of our society and to the health of our American Republic ... We live at a time in American history when conspiracy thinking permeates and colors our culture, beliefs, and speech; our very interpretation of history and current events. Understandably, many would point to the tragic events of 9-11 in explanation ... Yet, conspiracy thinking is not a recent phenomenon in American history. Nor will it dissolve as the pain and memory of 9-11 ebbs. Rather, it has deep roots in American life. It was and is a persistent and American tradition. "}}
::Clearly Goldberg, and Cass Sunstein who I quoted above, place a great deal of weight on the conspiracy theories even though both have rejected the theories. ] (]) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I think that you've missed my point about ''context''. The reference in which you cite is not about ''history in general'', it's about the ''history of conspiracy theories''. What I said was that 9/11 conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever, mentioned ''within the context of the 9/11 terrorist attacks themselves''. Instead, you provided a reference about 9/11 conspiracy theories ''within the context of the history of conspiracy theories''. ] (]) 18:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I assume you are talking about sources like ? It's an interesting point, but how do you defend it given that sources like these also don't mention anything about any of the other sub-categories in the "Effects" chapter? "Health Issues"? Not there. "Weather"? Certainly not! "Economic"? "Cultural"? "Government Policy"? No, yet all of these sections are well-referenced. Clearly, the article already has scope well beyond the context of those particular type of sources to which you referred; and I have established that conspiracy theories have as much, or more, weight than these other current sub-categories. Imagine a source saying that a 3-day increase in the temperature range is "essential to an understanding of history and society"! ] (]) 20:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' Why are we doing this song and dance again? I'm going to wait a week and if consensus doesn't drastically change over the course of that week I'm just going to archive this, because there is absolutely nothing new here. --] (]) 04:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Tarage}}, have you seen the ] I referenced above? That's very new (less than a month old). Also, the ] is fairly new (2013). A week sounds very reasonable to me, hopefully there is a middle ground that editors can find in that time. ] (]) 06:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You'll have to do quite a bit of leg work to get consensus to change. I do not envy the work ahead of you. ] probably won't ever agree, but you might be able to sway some of the other editors if you remain civil. My problem with all of this is that the song and dance has not changed. The talk page archives are littered with POV arguments such as this one. Please take time and listen to what the editors have said and try your best to address them. Good luck. --] (]) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks Tarage for the friendly advice. Maybe if there wasn't a ] from experienced editors at the top of the talk page to expand the Conspiracy Theories section as a way to improve the article, less people would come to the talk page to suggest this very thing? Or maybe, just maybe, we can find a way to actually work together, and come up with something that (serious) editors can agree upon? ] (]) 16:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' To all the editors who keep linking to ], here is what it says: "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." By this point, I have cited literally dozens of reliable sources that do just this. Some editors challenged some of the sources (thank you) - these were either removed, or defended by finding other sources that agree. Remember, "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." and most of my sources have been the ideal "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". And here is what the ] page says (emphasis mine): " Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, '''the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view''', but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." I welcome serious and polite comments, preferably with specifics. Thank you. ] (]) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per ], ], and ]. The main problem with the proposals above is that they violate our guidelines on ], and our policies on ] and ] by presenting ] as if they are part of some on going debate among qualified professionals or scholars in the appropriate fields (e.g., labeling the known facts as the "prevailing theory", or by citing submitted journal comments by well known, non-qualified, non-specialist, conspiracy theorists as if they carried any ], etc.). The "theories" advanced by the "truth movement" have been debunked, dismissed, discarded, or ignored by effectively all of the published, mainstream, authoritative, and reliable sources on the topic. The coverage of these conspiracy theories in reliable sources ''does'' mean that they satisfy ], and are thus acceptable for possible inclusion in Misplaced Pages. However, satisfying the requirements for possible inclusion does ''not'' make any of the claims made by adherents ''notable'' for anything other than being conspiracy theories. {{mdash}} ] (]) 08:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Thank you for acknowledging that I have established some notability! Hopefully now we can work on finding a wording that can be agreed upon. In response to your criticisms, it seems like you might not have seen the new ? They clearly do not "debunk, dismiss, discard, or ignore" the conspiracy theories, rather they give a prominent adherent an entire 45 minute segment of Washington Journal to present his theories. Also, it is a fact that several authors have published critiques in major engineering journals, whether or not you think their critiques are valid. The editors of the journals apparently found them sufficiently qualified for publication. The real question you hit on though is how to describe what are they critiquing? I think "prevailing theory" usually would imply a great deal of certainty... however, I do understand the concern because in the context of this paragraph the word 'theories' is also being used to refer to concepts that are considered nonfactual, and the current wording might seem to equate the two. Suggestions on how to get around this? Perhaps "accepted ]..." would work better? ] (]) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}}
==9/11==
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." ] (]) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
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.<br />
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Even though the English Misplaced Pages is in English, it should not assume a USA-centric/cultural view on matters/articles. <br />
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%. <br />
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 Misplaced Pages.<br />
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.<br />
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
: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? --] <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:] 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. --] (]) 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


== Hatnote ==
== Authenticity of bin Laden confession tape for NPOV ==


@], the reason given for the addition of the {{tlx|Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
This ] has been reverted twice with no real justification. The paragraph I added is sourced from 4 ] news articles. Plus in my opinion it fully adheres to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies in particular ] but also ] & ]. Any chance of some descussion on this before it is reverted again?
:I think otherwise, but whatever. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks ] (]) 10:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, the normal process of ] 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. --] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] (]) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
:::The article already uses too many older news sources and the ones you were adding were also ancient.--] 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. --] (]) 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Agree with comments above from MONGO and Tarage. ] (]) 09:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


== RfC on lead collage of photos ==
==New comment==
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}}
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 Misplaced Pages suck. ] (]) 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would oppose that. I know we run the risk of scaring off editors who do not ''presently'' understand ] (as opposed to some we ''want'' to run off, those who want to edit their own POV into the article, regardless of NPOV), but many of us are tired of explaining why ''the same'' edit has been rejected by consensus and because of policies and guidelines, time after time after time after time after time . — ] ] 04:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – ] 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. ] (]) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ah, no worries. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. ] (]) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? ] (]) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Do you have any alternative suggestions? ] (]) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. ] (]) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
: Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose:''' There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. ] (]) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the '''exact moment''' the plane crashed into the WTC? ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. ] (]) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' The version ] supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like ] and ] have been making ]. In that conversation, I see no input from those who wanted to update the collage. However, now that Chronus has initiated this RfC I hope there will be more input from those who support the change.
:I suggest keeping the current collage, but still working on the newer one to get it to a place where there is more agreement on improvements. Maybe the newer collage should have the same images as the current one? Or half the same ones? It is possible Butterscotch5 is right that the newer version isn't featuring the best images. To me, the newer version seems better because those with aging eyes can click on the individual images to see much larger versions and read the captions to better understand what they are seeing. This seems better than a single image file composed of several smaller ones, with a fairly large block of text to read through that describes them. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">] and ]</span> 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support (but keep current main image)''' Functionally, I think the proposed collage is better, the way each image is separate and has its own caption. It can be a bit unwieldy for some to click on a collage and scroll through it as one giant image. Also, the three separate images for the Pentagon crash seem unnecessary. But I agree with Kowal above that the current main status quo image is more "iconic". Showing the moment of impact with the explosion might feel more sensational but ultimately isn't important. The dark billowing smoke coming out of the towers is the ominous image that most people have in mind when they think of that day, and I think it actually captures the emotion of the day better than the fireball picture. ]] 22:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support with modification''' The current collage is rather crowded because it wants to capture so much of an extraordinarily complex and sophisticated attack as well as some of its consequences. I'd even say to cut down the proposed collage so as to represent one image per attack site (Pentagon, Towers, Flight 93). I think that'd improve visibility in keeping with HiLo48's concerns.
:I'd also propose resizing the images to be equally large. I think doing so would prevent the suggestion that one attack site is more important or significant than another based on size alone, which I personally currently perceive in the proposed collage. ] (]) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:25, 22 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Misplaced Pages:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Misplaced Pages. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleSeptember 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleSeptember 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 26, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
January 10, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 10, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 20, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 19, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
July 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
July 13, 2015Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, September 11, 2023, and September 11, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAviation: Accidents
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconDeath: Suicide Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconDisaster management Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED] Firefighting High‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Misplaced Pages! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Intelligence / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Intelligence task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconNew York City Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York (state) High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkyscrapers High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia / September 11 / History Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconVirginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 89 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 14 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
  • RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Moved, 17 January 2004, Discussion
  • RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, Not moved, 21 October 2004, Discussion
  • RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, Moved, 20 August 2008, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Not moved, 13 October 2010, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 31 March 2014, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 13 February 2021, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, Not moved, 14 February 2021, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Procedural close, 23 February 2021, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 26 January 2024, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 9 February 2024, discussion.
The contents of the World Trade Center/Plane crash page were merged into September 11 attacks on 11 September 2001. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history.
The contents of the Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks page were merged into September 11 attacks on 22 October 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Section sizes
Section size for September 11 attacks (45 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 19,394 19,394
Background 5,368 55,355
Osama bin Laden 7,890 7,890
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda members 4,601 4,601
Motives 20,054 20,054
Planning 9,945 9,945
Prior intelligence 7,497 7,497
Attacks 3,370 75,045
Crashes 28,009 28,009
Casualties 30,975 30,975
Damage 9,989 9,989
Rescue efforts 2,702 2,702
Reactions 3,398 57,836
Immediate response 8,746 8,746
Domestic reactions 7,816 17,817
Hate crimes 5,471 5,471
Discrimination and racial profiling 1,846 1,846
Muslim American response 1,681 1,681
Interfaith efforts 1,003 1,003
International reactions 17,734 17,734
Military operations 10,141 10,141
Aftermath 88 44,373
Health issues 9,895 9,895
Economic 7,126 7,126
Effects in Afghanistan 7,009 7,009
Cultural influence 4,157 4,157
Government policies towards terrorism 9,749 9,749
Legal proceedings 6,349 6,349
Investigations 21 32,085
FBI 9,373 9,373
CIA 2,195 2,195
Congressional inquiry 6,261 6,261
9/11 Commission 4,176 4,176
National Institute of Standards and Technology 6,075 6,075
Alleged Saudi government role 3,984 3,984
Rebuilding and memorials 32 19,599
Reconstruction 8,324 8,324
Memorials 11,243 11,243
See also 1,222 1,222
References 17 76
Notes 28 28
Citations 31 31
Bibliography 10,519 10,519
Further reading 2,890 2,890
External links 5,132 5,132
Total 323,526 323,526

Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all

WP:DROPTHESTICK. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — Czello 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.

But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.

I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? Moxy🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.
The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.
I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. Moxy🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
We go by what RS say we are not wp:censored just to appease some people's feelings. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"2001 attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2001 attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"2001 terrorist attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2001 terrorist attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 terrorist attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

@FlightTime, the reason given for the addition of the {{Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think otherwise, but whatever. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lead collage of photos

I'd like to understand why we don't keep this photo collage much more representative than the image montage in the article at the moment. The main image I suggested is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. Chronus (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – Anne drew 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. Chronus (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. Chronus (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, no worries. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? Chronus (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 Do you have any alternative suggestions? Chronus (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.Moxy🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Butterscotch5 And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the exact moment the plane crashed into the WTC? Chronus (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment The version Chronus supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like Butterscotch5 and Cena332 have been making a sincere effort to discuss this before making the change. In that conversation, I see no input from those who wanted to update the collage. However, now that Chronus has initiated this RfC I hope there will be more input from those who support the change.
I suggest keeping the current collage, but still working on the newer one to get it to a place where there is more agreement on improvements. Maybe the newer collage should have the same images as the current one? Or half the same ones? It is possible Butterscotch5 is right that the newer version isn't featuring the best images. To me, the newer version seems better because those with aging eyes can click on the individual images to see much larger versions and read the captions to better understand what they are seeing. This seems better than a single image file composed of several smaller ones, with a fairly large block of text to read through that describes them. Ender and Peter 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Support (but keep current main image) Functionally, I think the proposed collage is better, the way each image is separate and has its own caption. It can be a bit unwieldy for some to click on a collage and scroll through it as one giant image. Also, the three separate images for the Pentagon crash seem unnecessary. But I agree with Kowal above that the current main status quo image is more "iconic". Showing the moment of impact with the explosion might feel more sensational but ultimately isn't important. The dark billowing smoke coming out of the towers is the ominous image that most people have in mind when they think of that day, and I think it actually captures the emotion of the day better than the fireball picture. Kerdooskistalk 22:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Support with modification The current collage is rather crowded because it wants to capture so much of an extraordinarily complex and sophisticated attack as well as some of its consequences. I'd even say to cut down the proposed collage so as to represent one image per attack site (Pentagon, Towers, Flight 93). I think that'd improve visibility in keeping with HiLo48's concerns.
I'd also propose resizing the images to be equally large. I think doing so would prevent the suggestion that one attack site is more important or significant than another based on size alone, which I personally currently perceive in the proposed collage. Unidentifiability (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:September 11 attacks: Difference between revisions Add topic