This is an archive of past discussions about September 11 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do we really need this?[1] Wording aside ('gang of Muslims'), most of these types of incidents in the US were directed towards Muslims, not the other way around, so this seems like a bad example. Given the article's length, I would rather not bog it down with poorly worded, unnecessary, bad examples. Thoughts, everyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue of anti-American responses in the aftermath of 9/11 is also raised by MONGO above, and it is an issue we need to consider and discuss. I agree with AQFM that there was also an anti-Muslim response, and by the same token, we shouldn't (and don't) forget the sympathetic pro-American response to such an horrific attack on civilians.
I believe we can and should discuss carefully (as we did with CTs) how best to handle each issue/response in the article, so that we obtain an approach that treats each issue in an informative manner, based on reliable sources, with due weight, good wording, and good examples. Any overlaps will be easier to discuss within such a framework.
That source also says calls it "a racially motivated attack". Other than the timing, is there any evidence that it has any connection to the events of September 11? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed a newly added section (and related sentence in a different section) about the lawsuit against Iran. The main reason is that it doesn't seem to be significant enough for inclusion in the article. I've never heard of it, it doesn't seem to be particularly important and hasn't received wide-spread coverage. In contrast, the war in Afghanistan has had a decade of continual, wide-spread coverage and it only gets one paragraph. I don't see why this lawsuit is more important that the Afghan war. Weight continues to be an ongoing issue and this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not significant? It seemingly alters the 9/11 conspiracy very significantly by adding a state player to it. Who done it or who helped them do it is as important as one reaction to it. Wide spread reliably sourced media coverage is important but not the only arbiter of weight, if it was 9/11 conspiracy theories would have significantly more space. And your or any editors knowledge of the subject should never ever be the criteria of weight. Besides your claim of no widespread coverage is questionable. A quick Google News search shows 513 published or republished by stories including those by CBS, AP, Reuters, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Irish Times. 9/11 theories get tiny amount of space here despite wide spread coverage because the proponents are "fringe". The proponents pointing to Iran are not fringe. 9/11 commission members, investigative journalists, former MOIS officials. And now it has legal ruling behind it. And today (after I wrote the paragraph) Iran thought it important enough to deny part of it. That all being said language can always be changed. Edkollin (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm lost. Is this an avocation for more conspiracy theories? I thought we just got done dealing with that, or at least coming to consensus on where to go next. --Tarage (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy theory, but it's not notable. (And, if I understand the legal theory, each defendant could move to void the lawsuit as it applies to them when attempts are made to collect damages from them; no one actually has to "try" to void the lawsuit.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Iran probably couldn't move to void the lawsuit, but all their assets in countries which recognize US court judgments are already seized because of previous court judgments, so the "finding of fact" has no legal significance. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what this has to do with CT and I have no idea why this lawsuit is so important. If Iran really did assist Al Qaeda, then history books will be rewritten to include this. I'd rather wait to see if and how historians treat this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Evidently some or most did not read the deleted section or its sources and are getting hung up on side issues and I contributed to this problem while answering you. In the end the main issue is not the lawsuit or 9/11 conspiracy theories(FYI from what I have seen truthers don't like this ruling) it is the sources naming Iran and saying what they did to aide the hijackers.
Side/Other issues While it is important use what history books say we have rarely waited for them. I'd guess (and you would know better then me) the vast majority of information here is not from history books or was put in here prior to it's publication in history books. My use 9/11 conspiracy theories was a failed attempt at an analogy.
What makes this notable is not whether the damages are or are not collected, or if the suit was filed in the correct jurisdiction (although that information should be in the article for background) it is a possible change in the understanding of nature of the 9/11 conspiracy itself. Edkollin (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If there were evidence presented that Iran was involved, and reliable, secondary sources commented on that, it would be relevant. Briefs and motions would be unreliable, and the court findings are WP:PRIMARY, if there were any actual findings among the 276+ documents file with and by the court. I don't see the relevance of the lawsuit, itself. — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I find this comment so strange I don't know how to comment. Have you removed every link to the 911 report as well? Surely that is another irrelevant primary source. Rmhermen (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Since I wrote last the reliability of the the testimony has been called into question [4] Would this [5] or something like this [6] be a more proper location for this topic? Edkollin (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, a court's "findings" are not considered reliable except as they reflect the outcome of the case; the analog of the editorial process is the appellate process, which hasn't happened yet. The "findings" could only be considered reliable if explicitly upheld by an appellate court, not just let stand. The briefs, motions, and other filings by the parties are not at all reliable except as to the actions, and possibly intent, of the filing party. Testimony may be considered a fair statement of what the testifying party said, but the court's interpretation of it is not reliable. — Arthur Rubin(talk)20:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless this is picked up more prominently in the news or history books, it's too great a level of detail for this article. I'd probably support having it in some other appropriate page - maybe Responsibility for...' or Legal cases arising from...Tom HarrisonTalk19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
@Edkollin: Thanks for the link. For whatever reason, that site would not load everytime I tried to access it, but I was able to finally load the page. I think for now, I'd rather wait to see if and how secondary sources are updated. In the mean time, if you want to create a separate article about the lawsuit, I think that would be fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Will wait a few more days for people to get back to their routines catch up with work etc before going any further. Edkollin (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Will try and put this in the advanced knowledge debate article. Does not merit its own article as we agree the suit by itself is not notable. Edkollin (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Beginning of cultural impact section
I propose the first two sentences of the section should be replaced with this:
The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and culture. Its impact on culture extended to most aspects of life.
Why do you want to change it? You don't give any reasons why. I think the current wording is better. For example, in the first sentence, you've changed an action verb ('extends') to a non-action verb ('have') which makes the wording seem boring to be honest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
So far you have only mentioned the first sentence. Do you have any objections about my proposed changes to the second sentence? The wording of the second sentence currently is rather odd and confusing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how your basic objection would apply to the proposed second sentence. The current wording of that second sentence does not engage me and I do not find it to be brilliantly written. Do you mind explaining why the current wording of the second sentence is so much better than my proposed change?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The current second sentence is also hard to source: who says that the cultural impact is revealing with regard to the influence on "ordinary people"? Geometry guy21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to be polite, but your wording is boring. You dropped "wide-range" and replaced 'reveal' with 'extends'. To my ears, your proposal makes the text sound dry and boring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This would need a copyedit at the very least: "Its" does not match "attacks", and "extended" is the wrong tense for an ongoing influence.
For comparison: current text is:
The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people.
In both cases, there are phrases requiring sources ("significant effect", "wide range", "most aspects"). I also think it might be possible to copyedit these sentences down to just one, as they involve some repetition of ideas. Geometry guy21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Changing "extended" to "extends" is fine. Perhaps we should keep the current first sentence and add in my proposed second sentence with the small change of replacing "impact" in the first sentence with "effect" so we don't re-use the same word. My proposal with the second sentence, I think, provides a more natural segue into the next sentence. Plus, so long as we have sources for the following sentence we wouldn't need to source my proposed second sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
@GeometryGuy: Why are you saying that the second sentence is hard to source? Tom's proposal was based - in part - on one of my previous proposals from months ago and I based my version entirely on that popular culture guide book. We can double check to make sure no one inadvertently added something new, but everything in the entire section except the last sentence can be sourced to that book. That's why I placed the cite after the fifth sentence. It's the source for the previous 5 sentences. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with sourcing except for maybe the last sentence.
@Everyone: I'm having internet connnection issues at home. This might be the last post I make for a few days. I can follow the discussions on my phone and iPad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Let me attempt a synthesis.
The 9/11 attacks have influenced society significantly and their impact has extended beyond geopolitics into wide-ranging cultural effects.
I've taken a look at the source AQFK cites above. If we use this, the first sentence or two should be based on the intro to the book. Here are a few quotes that might help.
September 11, 2011, changed the landscape of American culture
Other shifts in American life since 9/11 have been powerful and long-lasting
Virtually all areas of popular culture... were deeply affected by the 9/11 attacks
A close examination of the relationship between September 11 and popular culture can reveal much about how the attacks were processed by ordinary people
The second sentence is evidently influenced by Quote 4, but I am not convinced it is encyclopedic to make a similar statement in the editorial voice: the revealing nature of the relationship is the opinion of the source, which requires in-text attribution.
The book discusses the wide range of emotional responses to 9/11, but I did not find reference to "wide-ranging" effects, even though these are evident. Hence I don't see a reason to keep that term, and we may be able to do better using the source material. Geometry guy22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the insinuation that 9/11 had more than a generally transient alteration to the cultural landscape, thats just the premise for some storylines so some authors have something to write about...now more than 10 years later, the only readily observable changes are if one must board an aircraft...exactly where are we going with this anyway?--MONGO05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no intent to go anywhere with it other than where I have said. My thought is that the current writing is sub-par and unencyclopedic. I want to go to a situation where we have better writing in this article. Do you think the current wording in the paragraph is of high quality?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is lousy wording...but I haven't seen anything any better...we're trying to (I think) overreach a bit...the impacts on a long term basis to the average American, minimal...I'm thinking about how we can use the section to better qualify what have been the real impacts...this will take some time to formulate. I don't think many people have much thought about the issue...surely those who lost loved ones have a different relationship to others who were only impacted by what they saw on the tele or when they have to board an airplane and even that hasn't changed too significantly.--MONGO05:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Civil liberties in the USA were somewhat revoked and have yet to be fully restored.Robert Greene (3 September 2010). The 33 Strategies Of War. Profile. p. 446.
Meh...nonsense...I live in the U.S. and I say that the cultural impact here is now just history. People simply don't think about 9/11 much these days...I can't see why we need to create a drama that doesn't even exist.--MONGO07:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Great rebuttal to the referenced material. Got a ref that says people dont think about 911 much anymore?. Also would like to point out the American deficit crisis is also very closely linked to 911 because of the wars... we will be paying for it by way of taxs for a generation or 2.The reference for my statement. Moxy (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, hum, the wars are one thing and all that is fine in a daughter article...but this is all tangential to what this article is supposed to be focused on...we're talking about one small section here and we need to maintain focus and scope. If you can rephrase the section and follow MOS in doing so, then have at it.--MONGO07:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I also live in the U.S. and can say pretty strongly that it still leaves a big footprint on our culture. Fear of terrorism, for instance, is still a heavy driver in society.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think government uses this fear to substainate spending that is neither well planned or executed and may not do anything more than provide a cover for the inevitable...they can say, well, we "tried"...which is better than answering for why nothing was done at all...otherwise, its a huge industry and money pit and that is perpetuated by fear mongering. Risk is always with us and some forms of terrorism or at the very least, violently anarachist activity has been ongoing throughout human history...the only difference now is the ability of a few to do so much damage to so many and that is what sparks the fear.--MONGO19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your right I guess the rest of us can moved forward then on the one sentence - as refs opposing your position of 911 no longer being culturally relevant have been provided. So as per "Geometry guy" request above ... requiring sources ("significant effect", "wide range", "most aspects"). Not the exact wording but close...Moxy (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't be obsessed with backing up the exact wording so long as the words we use are a fair and accurate representation of what is said in the source. The concern here is that the current wording reads poorly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
True, and if exact wording is used, it has to be a quote anyway...reasonable deductions can be inferred from various writings but the emphasis for this article should be to make sure we maintain focus and scope...the focus for this article should always have followed the 5 W's...what, when, who, where, and why....after effects, periperhal and incidental issues either don't belong here or need to be mentioned only in passing.--MONGO19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the efforts being made here to find sources. However, it seems to me that they are not quite addressing the same issue as the first two sentences of this section. Sources should support the subject matter in the article, and then that material should be worded to reflect the sources supporting it. That isn't circular: we have a pretty good idea here what subject matter we are talking about, and one source for it, but we either need better wording or more sources, probably both. Geometry guy21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensus through discussion naturally cannot emerge unless we see what changes people approve, your approval would be one step towards consensus and thus you know, you should like, say if you approve or not. ;)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Geometry guy: I know that you don't like "reveal" in the second sentence. I honestly don't understand your concern. If you can point me to the appropriate policy/guideline/essay and I'll try to understand what you're saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, in order to prove that, you need to provide other reliable sources that don't agree with this assessment. This means either a) a source which directly disputes this ("The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks do not reveal how they influenced ordinary people") or b) a source which makes a different claim ("The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal [something different]). But rather than ask you to provide such sources, can you suggest an alternate wording of the second sentence that addresses your concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand that WP:V does not circumvent WP:NPOV? Whether a source uses the word or not does not factor into whether we just throw it in there in the editorial voice as Geo said. Using "reveal" here is just puffery and nothing more. I see no reason for you to insist on such wording. Maybe you could provide an alternative wording for the sentence to try and satisfy the concerns of other editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The 9/11 attacks have significantly influenced society and this cultural impact extends to many aspects of life.
Sorry for the slow response: arguments over a couple of straightforward sentences are symptomatic of an atmosphere that this talk page needs to outgrow. No blame game: blame it 100% on me if need be. I don't want to have to "prove" anything about the current wording, nor do I want to take sides in a dispute. What I want is to find a consensus wording for the beginning of this section, wording that everyone finds acceptable because it is good wording. I proposed a rewording myself above, and The Devil's Advocate has provided a few alternatives. I prefer these wordings to the current one to the extent that they say less.
So far there seems to be only one relevant source on the table. I am willing for the article to say more, as it does now, based on that source, but in that case, I would favor in-text attribution: "As Quay and Damico note,..." or something like that. However, I would still prefer, if possible, not to rely so much a single source in this way, which can be done by saying less, or by integrating material from other sources. Geometry guy02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would prefer "show" to "reveal". I still prefer some of the shorter rewordings, but I'm all in favor of compromises. Geometry guy21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be better, though any synonym for "reveal" is problematic, but the wording in general needs work. Particularly the wording "wide range of cultural effects of the attacks" is sloppy. I also dislike the mention of "geopolitics" in the first sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Works for me, perhaps with a (matching) change of number, and a copyedit (with options): "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, cultural impacts of the attacks demonstrate their broad/general/widespread/wide-ranging effect on society." I would also suggest "illustrate" or "highlight" as alternative verbs to "demonstrate". I tend to prefer the perfect tense ("have demonstrated") but the present tense (as in "are an ongoing demonstration of") is okay here, and may be better. Geometry guy00:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(Regarding the latter comment I agree: per WP:CYCLE and WP:CONSENSUS, minor changes like these should ideally take place through progressive edits to the article, with constructive and informative edit summaries. However, I think past conflict regarding this article has resulted in a loss of trust, with a lingering wariness, as well as some ongoing disagreements in related articles. Rebuilding trust is not easy and requires time and effort from everyone, but patience and mutual respect bring great rewards: good faith no longer becomes an hesitant assumption, but a welcome vehicle for article improvement. As with my previous meta-comment, there is no blame implied here, only a sincere wish to look forward to making this article something Wikipedia as a whole can be proud of. Geometry guy 01:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)) Bracketing reply to removed comment, but I still hope my meta-comment is helpfully positive. Geometry guy01:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'm lost. Maybe I'm not as sharp as I used to be, but would it be possible to get a current list of proposals in a more organized manner? I would love to submit my opinion but I don't know what's new and what's outdated. --Tarage (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a summary of some of the ideas. Feel free to add further suggestions to the list, even if they are just tweaks. Maybe we can reach consensus this way? Geometry guy01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
(Current text) "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks show how they influenced ordinary people."
(G'guy 1st attempt) "The 9/11 attacks have influenced society significantly and their impact has extended beyond geopolitics into wide-ranging cultural effects."
(TDA latest) "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the cultural impact of the attacks demonstrates how they affected society in general."
(G'guy variant) "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, cultural impacts of the attacks demonstrate their widespread effect on society"
Yes, I see the benefit of that idea: it would provide an editorially neutral link, and free up the wording enough to make it easier to write a single introductory sentence, rather than two. Geometry guy22:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
When I saw "see also" I thought he meant at the bottom of the page, but putting it right below the section header would definitely be a nice change. I have been troubled by the fact that the article being linked to was more specifically about art, film, and music as opposed to the broader social implications the paragraph is about. Also, now that I think about it, adding "broader" in the suggested wordings above would seem to be a nice substitute for the "wide-ranging" wording in the current version. On another point, I don't really like making "impact" plural. That strikes me as odd.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe that would make it easier to write about the cultural impacts...the List doesn't have to be incorporated into the body of the section and we don't have to WP:PIPE the link to make it fit, which MOS suggests we shouldn't...here.--MONGO23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, with that perhaps wording like this would be preferable:
"In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the attacks have had a broad impact on society and culture in general."
I've proposed it as an edit. I hope we have built enough trust on minor issues such as this to use the normal editing process for minor improvements and consensus building. To succeed in this, please remember that WP:BRD does not mean "be as bold as possible", nor does it mean "revert first, ask questions later". Aim instead to make only incremental changes, and, in response, prefer compromise edits or fixes to changes, rather than reverts (WP:CYCLE is an alternative acronym that refers to this). Usual disclaimers: no criticism of any editor or action is implied by these comments, but rather an optimistic look forward. Indeed, this discussion has demonstrated that all contributing editors have much to offer in terms of improving this article. And there is work for us to do :) Geometry guy23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with that: "impacted" is awkward. I hope we can find wording that everyone can live with: it is down to just one sentence now, and not a particularly contentious one. Geometry guy23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I was trying something a little different. Saying "have had a significant impact" is a sufficient substitute for "significantly impacted" in the section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Friends, fellow editors. I have not been active on wikipedia a lot due to Real Life. (Work, Occupymovement, Family life.) I am older and wider now.
I fully endorse this page now, its reflecting the official story of the events. It is not wikipedia's role to pioneer. If so, we would fight each other forever, trying to decide which direction to pioneer in!!
As long as Mainstream Society and it's Media accepts the Official Story, and keeps disregarding all established facts which invalidate that story, it's not wikipedia's job to correct that. Wikipedia is already doing a good job providing this information, for those willing to look.
But we cannot lead. We should follow. That's our job here. So, fellow searchers for beauty: enjoy what is here, and do not try to perfect it here. We should make a perfect world out there, and then wikipedia will follow !
How about 2012 ? It's a nice year to make the transistion and break our chains.
I... what? You were banned. You are still banned. Banned for having sock puppets, like this one. I am completely at a loss as to what you hoped to accomplish here. I'm further at a loss as to how this account hasn't been banned yet. Can an administrator please take care of this? --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, here's the discussion. As of this writing, a degrading and defamatory image of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in use in this article. This individual has never been convicted of involvement the 9/11 matter; and as such, presumption of innocence stands. Use of such an adversely biased image should be regarded as a gross violation of the requirements of WP:BLP; and is also not in keeping with the principle of Neutral Point Of View. The image has been commonly used in the pop culture media. If certain media outlets want to wallow in the journalistic gutter, it's their privilege to do so. That doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia to do the same. If an image must be used, one of the available neutral images should be selected. Wildbear (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't care if he is convicted or not. Either way he should be treated like any other living person. We have a free image that does not make him look like he just got arrested for child pornography and so we should go with that one. The image from his capture has relevance in the article on him when mentioning his capture, but including it here does not serve much of a purpose. In fact, the image I attempted to replace it with has more relevance as it is from 2001 and was included on the FBI's wanted posters.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If I do a Google image search,[7] it's by far the most popular image of him, and therefore the one most likely to be recognized by our readers. We write for them, after all. It's used by many, many reliable sources, even BBC News.[8] Please keep in mind that WP:NPOV refers to editorial neutrality. IOW, we don't get to override sources based on our own personal opinions and biases. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with AQFK. This request is pointless. Simply because you don't like what reliable sources say and show does not mean you can overwrite them. And, once again, Wikipedia is NOT a court of law, so we can say whatever we want to say about a person. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, because it's not like there's some sort of policy that says the exact opposite. The real issue here is that a lot of people like the image that makes KSM look like a dirty hobo and despise any attempt to have something that looks more respectable. My feeling is that it makes the article look more like a joke than a serious attempt at making an encyclopedic work. We really don't even need to have an image of KSM in this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Because a picture of him taken at his capture, which is not only relevant to this article but the attacks themselves, is obviously wrong. We should clearly have a picture of him at his favorite bar knocking back a brewski with his bros. That would be far more appropriate and relevant... --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The picture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg is entirely appropriate and adds to the article. The third paragraph is about his arrest, transportation to Gitmo, waterboarding, and confession - events directly relevent to his treatment and condition. The picture gives the reader a better understanding of, and context for, those events. Tom HarrisonTalk21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The FBI wasn't going to have THAT image of him on a Most Wanted poster since he was no longer wanted.--MONGO03:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Geopolitics vs politics in cultural impact section
I removed "geo" from "geopolitics" in the cultural impact section. The issue is that "geopolitics" is too narrow a term for the political issues that are included in the article. Also, the preceding subsection is about "government policies toward terrorism" and has nothing to do with geopolitics from what I can tell. All we have are mentions of domestic political issues. The aftermath section had a bit more about geopolitics, but it is no longer in that section. Given that the impact was in the broader scope of politics we should not say "geopolitics" in that sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment here, and do so reluctantly, as I am fed up with arguments over individual choices of words, and with editors insisting that each word in the article (or even this paragraph) is protected from change by consensus. It is an attitude that prevents normal editing and encourages a battleground mentality. I agreed upon the inclusion of this paragraph, not the choice of every word in it.
In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, the word "geopolitics" is appealing here for two reasons: first, it is a catchy word, and second, there is an overlap between politics and culture. The sources do not use the term, so unless we find one which does use it (in this context), the first reason should be dismissed: good encyclopedic writing is not about using unattributed unsourced eyecatching words; there are plenty of other ways to make an article interesting. The best case for "geopolitics" here is that it contrasts cultural impact with an aspect of politics which has a relatively small intersection with everyday society and culture.
However, that is also a weak point: the whole point of the first sentence is to make an interesting and relevant contrast in order to introduce the rest of the paragraph. We don't want to write, for example, "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond architecture and structural engineering into society and culture in general."
I think we are trying to say that the impact of 9/11 on society is not purely political, and then give more cultural and sociological examples. For instance, conspiracy theories, which prompted this whole debate in the first place, evidently do have both political elements and even geopolitical elements. What we've agreed, however, is that they are most notable from a cultural and sociological viewpoint, as with the other examples discussed in this section. That's the consensus we are building on, not the choice of every word.
So I prefer "politics" here to "geopolitics", but am open to any rewording of the first sentence that is based upon an agreed goal and the reliably sourced material we present. Geometry guy21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You made a previous suggestion about the term "political arena" and I think that would be sufficiently catchy and still be broader than the current term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes: in praise of my own suggestion :) the term "political arena" makes a contrast between the formal, partisan, governmental and institutional (including international) aspect of politics, versus the more cultural and sociological aspects of politics which are implicit here. It would be nice to have a source that makes the contrast in a similar way, but I believe this is the contrast we are seeking to make in our presentation/organization of source material in this section. Geometry guy23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that many of the political effects were domestic and others international. Not adding some sort of narrow prefix to politics is the most accurate way of wording it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've also been asked to comment, so I'll write some of my thoughts here. I agree that the term geopolitics is technically more narrow than the breadth of the topic might warrant. It reads well in the sentence, since 9/11 might be thought of as largely a geopolitical event. But 9/11 undeniably had considerable political repercussions as well. I'd be concerned that if the term "politics" were used alone, the reader might perceive that as being somewhat provincial, just as "geopolitics" might seem to be too confined to an international view. I don't have a good suggestion at this time, since I feel that adding too much qualification to the term would just slow down the flow in the paragraph, with little beneficial gain. I'm okay with either "geopolitics" or "politics" - I have no preference for either. If anyone comes up with a better idea, I'll be ready to put my support behind it. Wildbear (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I consider it acceptable, and perhaps an improvement. I looked through a thesaurus for similar words, and "arena" seems to convey the intent about as well as anything; in that it implies a virtual space, rather than a real geography. Wildbear (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No page about 11 September attacks is complete without mentioning the large number of people who on the basis of the video and other available evidence, find the official account unconvincing.
In particular:
World Trade Centre Building fell with freefall acceleration. World trade centre 7 video analysis
Pentagon attack video footage from this article:
small object appears on right hand margin of image immediately before explosion does not look like an airliner
white flash on impact - is not consistent with fuel/air explosion
Other evidence:
Lack of aircraft wreckage at pentagon.
Suspicious activities, removing wreckage from World Trade Center before it could be forensically examined.
Please review the archives for very extensive discussion of inclusion of conspiracy theories. Please remember that this talkpage is not a forum for speculation or general theorizing: there is a sourced article at 9/11 conspiracy theories that is linked from the article and which discusses the CT issues in detail. Acroterion(talk)02:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In the section "Warnings Before the Attack", Condolezza Rice is listed as the Secretary of Defense. At the time of the attack, Condolezza Rice was the Secretary of State and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. It is not clear who actually received the information mentioned in the article. (Redacted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake...at the time of the attacks, Condolezza Rice was the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State. She did not become the Secretary of State until GWB's second term in office. My apology for the error. JCF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
MONGO reverted it [11] with this comment:revert...he said she said...I say this is wrong article to be agenda pushing...by well established CT POV pusher. The part with a serious argument against my edit is he said she said. Anyone would like to restore the edit rephrased, so it's clear that the phrase was attributed to Rice by senator Hart? Or is there another reason why this edit doesn't fit to the article?
My edit summary was incivil and I apologize for making it. I did not agree with your addition and think it is tangential in the extreme to what the focus of this article should be, which is the attacks themselves...a position I have alwasy held.MONGO20:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok (apologies accepted). The "Warnings" section is there already, and in fact, I tried to find a better source for the quote which Tom had removed, instead, I found this interview by D.Talbot wit senator Hart. I won't insist on this edit any further, unless some other editor expresses his/her opinion. Perhaps, I shall move the edit to the proper subarticle. lessismore (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Well...my sentiments have always been that in this particular article, we're lacking focus...I think over the past year edits made by some have helped to streamline the items...but it in my opinion unless the article can get more focused on just the attacks, it hasn't a chance of becoming a good article again, much less a featured one.--MONGO03:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Warnings section
A Quest For Knowledge appeared to have removed mention of the August memo and replaced it with duplicate material about the July meeting mistakenly. The statement that material was not supported by the source is not accurate. If it is a reference to the "several officials warned or were warned" statement that is a typical WP:SUMMARY of the section's content. Should it be about the "contentious" wording that is supported by the Blanton source. Everything is thus supported by reliable sources and some material was mistakenly removed. As to there not being discussion, that is not a legitimate basis for reverting changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no requirement that discussion be had before a change is made. Edits are the preferred method of getting consensus. In this case the change is uncontroversial, just some retooling of the paragraphs and a few sourced additions. Should AQFK have an objection to part of the material on the basis of it not being directly sourced that can be easily remedied by finding another source and adding it to the material. That is no basis for a wholesale revert. Your response was actually appropriate and constructive as concerns were addressed through editing rather than reverts. Discussion should ideally only be a resort when there is a contentious dispute that cannot be remedied through normal editing. Forcing a discussion on every little change only obstructs the improvement of articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Look, it's Bold - Revert - Discuss. Your bold change has been reverted, and AQFK has expressed concerns that it may not accurately reflect the sources. The next step is discussion until we reach consensus. It's pointless for you to unilaterally declare your change uncontroversial. Manifestly it is controversial, or it wouldn't have been reverted. Tom HarrisonTalk15:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your reverts are actually removing information about the August briefing. Also, removing the entirety of the material doesn't help BRD because it doesn't tell anyone what is being disputed. If it is only part of the material being disputed then there is no basis for reverting all the changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
These precipitate and unilateral changes are disruptive, and are coming close to screwing up the article. You need to stop this at once, stop reverting, and propose and get consensus for your changes. It may be necessary to take the page back to NuclearWarfare's version of 13 March 2012 just to untangle what you've done; I'll wait for others to look it all over. I was a fool to try and accomodate your rewrite. Tom HarrisonTalk15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reverting all the improvements I made to that section would be overstepping. If you have any specific objections to the changes I made then raise them here and let us discuss them. Discussion is quite impossible if no one is going to say what problem they have with a change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
What improvements? Looks like some conspiracy theory POV pushing to me...how about you take a break and I'll look over your "improvements" this evening and if they don't look like what they do in my latest cursury glance, then maybe we can add some of it...MONGO16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? Nothing I did has anything to do with conspiracy theories. The warning section has been in there for some time. All my changes did was remove the timeline-style appearance of the section, move it out of the "attackers" section since it had nothing to do with them, and clarify a few points in a way that would actually be a disservice to conspiracy theories. Some objectionable changes that had been in that section for some time were noticed as a result of me editing that section, but I was not the one who put the material in there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
To make it easier for you to look at the improvements here is the first change I made to the section: [12]. You can see from that what it looked like before I began making changes. Here are the most significant changes I have made since then: [13][14].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It has all the appearances of overemphasis on the advance knowledge debate...which is a pretty lousy article in itself, riddled with CT and over reach to promote a POV...namely LIHOP...that the Bush administration let it happen. I always love it whenever someone tries to word the innuendo first THEN adds the disqualifying statements...it would be better if it simply stated the facts...namely that Rice et al, and other members of the Bush administration were briefed on the potential for a slightly greater risk of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, but the evidence was meager, in fact so meager, that all that could be done was to continue to monitor the situation.--MONGO00:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the one who put this section in the article. I merely clarified a few points. However, it certainly merits inclusion in the article as this is a very significant issue with lots of mainstream coverage. Still not finding a single claim here regarding any specific material not being supported by the sources. AQFK only said the material "may" not be supported by the sources and has so far not quantified that remark.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hum...well, it really does HAVE to be your way I suppose...but allow me to underline a point I have tried repeatedly to make but don't seem to be getting the message through on...do you concur that an article should follow Summary Style, WEIGHT and FOCUS and minimize innuendo and he said, she said peripherals? I really don't think much if anything regarding the advance knowledge debate (which should possibly be retitled to 9/11 Advance Knowledge Conspiracy Theories) has much merit for inclusion in this article...this is supposed to be about the attacks...whether less or more was known beforehand about whether they would or wouldn't happen is so ripe with speculations that anything of a he said/she said nature can be construed to be pretty much what the reader wants it to be in their own minds...hence, we really shouldn't be going off on that tangent in this article.--MONGO15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be focused on the attacks too, but that whole 9/11 Commission thing seriously looked at who knew what and when. That is also something people would be interested in when looking at this article. We should leave most of the nitty gritty details to other articles for sure, but it has to be mentioned here, in my opinion. However, this is all beside the point. AQFK suggested something in my change "may" not be supported by sources and so far no one has actually pointed to any specific issue. So I will inquire again: what in my changes "may" not be supported by the sources?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems with the edit was the claim beginning with "One of the most contentious warnings was the..." Unless I'm missing something, this isn't supported by the cited source. Also, we should be careful not to engage in political demagogy. This memo was seized on by politicians and political pendants as a way to attack the Bush administration. But what I would like to see is some scholarly research on this. What do academics and historians say about this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If there is any other material you believe is not supported then please say so. On the "contentious" wording, the Blanton source, which is reference #159 at present, contains the following quotes:
The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning
These contrasting interpretations dominated the weekend's news.
The most contentious moments of today's nationally televised hearing of the commission investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks focused on the controversial secret intelligence briefing received by President Bush on August 6, 2001
If those aren't enough we could easily switch out "contentious" for "controversial" or otherwise find another to back up the wording. As to providing what experts think about the briefing, that is a question of further improvement on the content. There are a lot of books mentioning this memo, but I am not sure how many would fit the bill.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, again, I think this is pretty flimsy for incorporation into this article...secondly, you italiczed FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack. and then have this ref supporting the italiczed info...perhaps I am tired, but I don't see that information in the cited reference and I have read through it 3 times...I keep looking but I don't see it..can you explain which paragraph it is in? Also, there sure is a lot of hyperbole in that source for information...a cursory glance and it looks like a CT website almost, or at least one that likes to throw out links to various clickable documents and then add their own spin to it...do we have a peer reviewed scholarly book source which better evaluates these documents from a more neutral perspective?--MONGO04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The quote and source were already in the section that way, I just restored the information that had been there before I made changes. However, the briefing that is linked to from that source does contain the quote. It appears a link on that page is where the previous Rice quote was from as well, though that was not accurately portrayed. As to the source, Blanton is kind of reliable. :) I don't think mentioning these warnings is inappropriate at all for this article. Three paragraphs and 2 kilobytes in an article of this size is not overkill, and it is a matter that gets a lot of attention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The subsection Warnings was added by User:Ciroa on 16 Jan. If I'd read that more carefully at the time I'd have seen the Rice quote wasn't in the source cited for it, and I'd have removed it then, so shame on me for not catching that. Having now looked at the references and thought about it, it seems to me this Warnings subsection is too peripheral to the attacks to be included in this article. Thoughts? Tom HarrisonTalk12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
IF the article has a chance at a good article standing again, it must stay on target with the focus of the title. I don't think TDA understands my complaint about this....perhaps I'm not being clear about it. I can't see any reason why the 9/11 Advance Knowledge Debate article can't be simply a see also at the end of this article. We've already added a Cultural Impacts section (primarily to incorporate links to conspiracy theory articles)...now we have this warning section just to go off on another tangent...this article deteriorates with further and further divergence from what its scope should be.MONGO13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is the exact kind of information people would expect to find in an article about the attacks. I am not sure how this is "peripheral" as it deals with the preparedness of the United States. People would want to know "were there any signs of this coming?" The advance-knowledge debate has been one of the dominant mainstream controversies in post-9/11 inquiries. To suggest it is only "peripheral" to the issue is reaching. Now, is there any opposition to me at least restoring those improvements to the warnings section? Even if you don't want the material in you could at least allow the section to be improved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually...I think it isn't...apparently only you think it is...so if what I think, what Tom harrison thinks and what AQFK thinks doesn't matter to you and you alone, then by all means, override our opinions and do whatever you want.MONGO14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I am only asking if anyone is opposed to me simply making improvements to the section. Any objections to the section being here at all are secondary to that right now, in my opinion. The section's inclusion can be discussed more broadly at another point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
We can only discuss the "improvements" you want to add? We're not allowed to discuss whether we think the section even belongs here? By improvements can we look forward to more references that don't actually support the improvements unless we click several more links only available from a website? Without asking again whether there are RS's in a peer reviewed neutral source available...I think the entire section needs to be removed.MONGO16:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I am asking if anyone has an objection to me making some basic improvements. Should you want a discussion over including the section that is another thing. My only issue right now is that the section doesn't look as good as it could look.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
3 have told you they object...do you need 4 objections or 10 or how many do you need. Myself and Tom harrison have both stated that we question why the section is even needed...not sure how else it can be phrased to you. Above in this tread you stated that no beforehand discussion was needed for any of your edits.MONGO20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
They object to the section itself, which is not the point of discussion here. As to no discussion being need, there is really no need for discussion about changes like the ones I made, but obviously some editors want me to get their approval first. So I am asking if any editor has objection to the improvements I made to the section. If they dislike the section they should initiate a new discussion about that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Is there a new wp policy or widely endorsed and accepted guideline to cross check wp articles against the Encyclopedia Britannica? Do we need to rewrite now every single wp article that has also an EB entry?TMCk (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Straw men aside, tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics and useful in determining weight because they've already made that determination. If you know of any other tertiary sources, we should look at them, too. See WP:PSTS and to a much lesser extent, WP:BALANCE. The other way to determine weight would be to read every single secondary source and aggregate them. Unfortunately, this is pretty much unworkable in practice on contentious topics because a dedicated POV-pusher can usually find a secondary source that backs their position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You are down playing secondary sources in favor of tertiary sources which the policy you cited doesn't do at all. We do report what secondary sources say if they're notable and widely published (which of course determents weight just like tertiary sources can do). Regarding the subject of the article, there are "controversies" that are reported facts and have nothing to do with that conspiracy crap. Hell, a terrorist attack like 9/11 and no, at least minor, controversy? Give me a break ;)TMCk (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica does talk about advanced knowledge, however. Read the section about the 9/11 Commission and its findings. It includes different information, but still covers the advanced knowledge debate. Would you support including information in the article like what is included there?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How about we initiate a discussion about the need to initiate a discussion for a discussion that is already under discussion?MONGO20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't - I'd just support removing the whole section entirely. As to TDA, no, I don't want you making "improvements". I don'y want to sound rude, but I just don't think what you view as an 'improvement' is what others do. Maybe you could tell us what you want to change, as an act of WikiLove and/or good faith? I'd certainly be willing to at least listen. ToaNidhiki0522:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"I am only asking if anyone is opposed to me simply making improvements to the section." You'd do better to post here what you want to change. Our understandings of what constitutes improvement have differed in the past, when a change presented as clear improvement any reasonable man would welcome has seemd to me to be tendentious rewording, emphasis on some conspiracist trope, or a big rewrite. Tom HarrisonTalk22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Come on, the improvements I am suggesting are just a restoration of the improvements that were reverted. You can look at the diffs in the revision history, compare them to the current version, and just say yes or no.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't tell what you mean for sure. For example, you restored on 15:14, 18 March 2012 a paragraph that seems inadequetly sourced. The quote isn't in the source cited, but is from a transcript linked from that source. And why are we using that particular quote? Is it the most representative? Could we use the next paragraph in the transcript, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." Then the paragraph you restored goes on to quote Rice, again from a transcript. Same questions - why those quotes particularly? That subsection on Warnings needs to go. Ultimately to present a balanced account of this issue we'd need a whole article. We have one, but it has problems of its own. So if you insist I say yes or no, I'll have to say no. Tom HarrisonTalk02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"That subsection on Warnings needs to go." Why? Weren't there some notable warnings (later covered by RS's)? Maybe they weren't to the extend to what happened but warning [from intelligence] there certainly was.TMCk (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for some points; the problem is to present a balanced account in the space we can devote to it. There had been some progress in shortening and focusing the article, then the section on popular culture had to be added, primarily as a place-holder for a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Now there's this section on Warnings with a see-also to September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, which was itself originally created as a sub-article of (wait for it) 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is one element of the background of the attacks, and a major focus of the CTs. Linking it from the section See also might be appropriate, or might not. We already link to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and advanced-knowledge debate is a sub-article of that. I don't think we should be expanding our coverage of the CTs at all, and especially not when the page is already too long. Tom HarrisonTalk21:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever you may claim, you certainly know I am not talking about "restoring" changes that are currently in the article, but changes that are no longer in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
An "improvement" would be to remove the section...we're wasting time discussing things not directly related to the events themselves and this article muddles along a COATRACK for every peripheral thing that deserve no more than a See Also link which allows those interested in tangents the opportunity to read about those things in daughter articles.MONGO16:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems discussion about improving the section is being side-tracked by arguments for excluding the section so here is what I will do: I am going to go ahead and restore the changes I made to the section, since it seems there is no specific objection to those changes that has not already been addressed or cannot be just as easily addressed through further editing and then I will start an RfC on the talk page here about whether there should be a warning section at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Another issue to consider is article length. During the last GA review, we had to trim the article to get it to meet the length maximum. Since then, we added a new Cultural impact section and now a Warning section. We're probably over the maximum length again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The reference to a "debate" article on CT nonsense is not conducive to the warning section in a factual article. I stubbed out an article on September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks as the appropriate article. It can see also to the "debate" article. We can keep Non-debateable facts in the stubbed out article and this article and leave the nonsense in the CT articles. --DHeyward (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone noticed my comment from this morning, but I'm seriously thinking of nominating September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate for deletion.[15]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Time zones
It's a bit unclear to me which times are used throughout the article. Maybe it's a good idea to add something like EST (and GMT as well)? 109.178.164.59 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I remember hearing about this. It's a minor footnote to the day. However, those sources are horribly biased. IIRC, the Korean airliner mistakenly sent the "hijack" signal, then sent it again when they were asked to confirm. The whole thing boiled down to either a translation error or procedure error where the crew thought they were supposed to do that under the circumstances. Despite the conspiracist angle in the second link, they were turned away from Anchorage because it's a major population center. Whitehorse was the nearest airfield that could accomodate the airliner which wasn't as high-population an area.
Thanks; I hadn't looked hard enough for that wikipedia article. The filmmakers claim it couldn't have been a translation error. But what you state seems plausible. I'd never heard of this. --NotWillRiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Filmmakers claim lots of things to promote their work. This is a case where Occam's razor applies: a misunderstanding based on mistranslation makes the most sense, not "a huge conspiracy to cover up a hijacked airliner." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable quantity. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.
”
I've removed one link that was already present in the article text and several that are extremely unlikely will ever be integrated into the article text.
That leaves us with two links:
I haven't looked yet, but if anyone can spot a place where these two links can be integrated, please do so. If they're not going to be integrated into the article, they should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Patience, please, AQFK. "See also" sections are not deprecated, and can be useful to readers. Writing a comprehensive article which needs no "See also" is extremely difficult. Here we surely need to make improvements one step at a time. Geometry guy00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
If you think there's a link that I was too hasty with, please restore it or post it here for discussion. As for the remaining two links, that's why I kept them and opended a discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with you doing that. I would caution, however, against putting the cart before the horse: the ultimate content of the article will determine the need for a See also section, not vice versa. Geometry guy00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's been nearly four three months and no one has suggested how this could be incorporated into the article text. Therefore, I have removed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Support It is a significant and notable aspect of the subject that needs to be mentioned here. Obviously most of the detail should be included in the article on advanced knowledge, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least mention it here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
ANOTHER RFC?...how many Rfc's are you going to have TDA? 4 editors in the above section said no to the section...<Head-desk><head-desk><head-desk>MONGO17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per MONGO and HandThatFeeds. I expressed openness to considering your edits if you would just tell us what you want to do, and you never told anyone what you wanted done. TDA's insistence on making 'improvements' nobody wants is tendentious editing to the point of disruption at this point, and quite frankly I am tired of it. ToaNidhiki0517:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, "Ideally many of those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopic covered in that section." In other words, it is appropriate to have both a summary in this article, as well as a sub-article. Superm401 - Talk00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
During the last GA review, we had to trim the article to get it to meet the length maximum. If you think we should have this section, can you please identify which section you want to remove so we don't exceed the maximum length? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple issues with that assessment. First, he says, "I am going to be looking in to [...] my personal opinions", which is no longer allowed by the criteria (don't know whether it was then); it says "good article reviews should be concluded only in accordance with the good article criteria, not personal preferences" and links to an essay explaining further. Also, the length was certainly not the only issue addressed. The current criteria also do not specify an exact length limit, which is as it should be (it depends on the content, not the number of bytes). It just says "without going into unnecessary detail". Even if there were a byte limit, I would ask for an exception because the 9/11 attacks are such an important (and broad) topic. If the exception weren't granted, I would focus on how to make it a good article, and let Good Article™ status be secondary. Superm401 - Talk05:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there were issues with the GA reviews, but this wasn't one of them, and after GA review, I'd like to take the article to FA status. AFAIK, there's no special exemption to WP:LIMIT that I'm aware of. So, again, I ask: what parts do you want to remove? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:LIMIT explicitly says, "however, there are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion.". I recommend that you make your cases for removal mostly on the merits, and only partly on length. Superm401 - Talk22:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have expressed concerns about delving into political demagogy (see my posts above). Others have expressed other concerns. As for the GA reviews, we don't get to choose our reviewer. IIRC, the last 2 complained about the length, and it would wrong to resubmit it without first attempting to address all the issues that were brought up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
During the last GA review, we had to trim the article to get it to meet the length maximum. If you think we should have this section, can you please identify which section you want to remove so we don't exceed the maximum length? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose this RfC as an attempt to abuse the editing process Assuming good faith, TDA is just being deceitful. He is being obtuse in phrasing this RfC as whether this section should be deleted or not. Superm401 obviously has not read or followed the history of this or he would realize that what he supports already exists. TDA is conducting an RfC with phrasing that suggests "Motherhood and Apple Pie" but his history on that section is more along the lines of vinegar and piss, just not as tasty. The RfC is poorly phrased, worded and portrayed. He might as well have asked whether the entire article should be deleted: it's that bad. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read all the history. However, it is clear from this section that it is indeed controversial whether to retain the section at all. Both Tom Harrison and MONGO are specifically against having the section. I agree that "what [I] support[] already exists" (it exists currently), but some editors are suggesting removing the section. Superm401 - Talk04:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but understand that the argument "Let's make it bigger" is counterbalanced "Let's take it out." The point being made was that the level of detail and commentary being proposed and added about minutiae was still just minutiae and could all be removed without significantly affecting the article. TDA's argument that it had to be expanded had the same merit as the argument to take it out so that is why the RfC is meaningless and why the history of the argument is important. It's like arguing with your SO about whether you need HBO AND Showtime - "But we need it!" "We don't NEED any of it." You got sucked into an RfC about on "We don't NEED any of it." when in fact, that's not the argument. I shortened the section considerably without taking out a single event mentioned and stubbed the details into a new article. That action will only be controversial with an extremely small minority and the reason has nothing to do with the content in the article. Travis is as Travis does. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The RfC proposal does not say anything about expanding the section. If TDA later claimed the RfC backed that, it would indeed be misleading. It seems to me that the editors I mentioned are arguing that "We don't NEED any of it." After we establish that we're going to pay for a movie channel (HBO/Showtime), we can figure out which one. ;) Superm401 - Talk23:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't mention expanding it. But look to the prior section and you will that's exactly what he's trying to do. By actions alone, you can see TDA is trying to expand and the other editors are trying to maintain status quo. They mention delete only as a response to expanse. It's not as if an edit war happened where the section was being deleted. For that reason, you can see his intention is misleading at best. It won't take much for TDA to claim that the RfC supports his position in the prior section as that is what he will claim this RfC is predicated. Hopefully he will be topic banned by then and this will be moot. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose on grounds that the sub-topic does not at first reading warrant such a lengthy section (if any) and more importantly the way it is drafted comes across to me (as an uninvolved editor) as non-encylopedic axe-grinding. Thom2002 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose requiring an independent section by that name, but the question is moot. I don't have a problem with what's there now, but it shouldn't have some special status in the article. Tom HarrisonTalk22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It is pretty clear, I want to see what the wider community thinks about having a section about warnings of an attack in the 9/11 article. What is included in such a section need not require an RfC, unless it becomes particularly contentious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we're trying to get this to GA level. We already had to trim the article to get it under the maximum article length. Anyone who wants to add a new section should identify which section they want to remove. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think part of getting it to GA level is making sure it is comprehensive. That is one of the major reasons it was stripped of GA status after all. We should first focus on making it comprehensive and then consider how we might shorten it to a decent length. That way is a lot simpler than trying to shorten it and then making it comprehensive, because then you'll have to go right back to shortening it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the main reason was that 9/11 conspiracy theories weren't covered. We've now addressed that. Anyway, you're about to be topic-banned so I wouldn't worry about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The content of the section is the entire fucking point. "a section about warnings" is vague and unhelpful, just like "a section about airplanes" would be ill-defined. Be specific: what would such a section encompass? Without defining the debate, it's useless, filing an RfC for the sake of filing an RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that's not what this RfC is about. He has reduced the discussion to a binary "yes/no" about the section existing, which hasn't been debated at any reasonable length yet. There has been less than a day of discussion on the matter. He wasn't getting consensus on his changes to the section and, when someone suggested maybe the section itself is not appropriate for the article, he went straight to this RfC. I find it hard to AGF in those circumstances, especially given his history on this topic. I hate to say it, but the RfC smacks of WP:POINT: the content of the section itself is likely to stay, since there's been no in depth discussion about removing it. At worst, it may not stay as an independent section, but some of the content would get moved to other parts of this article, or another article. But that's not what this RfC is proposed as: it's set up as an "all or nothing" question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite02:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The RFC is about whether it should stay "as an independent section". You note yourself that some people dispute that. Once that's resolved, we can consider improvements to it (though it seems pretty solid). Superm401 - Talk05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
@Dhey My "expansion" was nothing more than adding contextual information and a summary of the section. The change I made didn't even add half a kilobyte. As to the claim that I would use an endorsement from this RfC as an endorsement of my changes, my changes aren't the subject of the RfC so I wouldn't claim that. If I wanted to claim that I would have made it about my changes specifically. You can refuse to believe me, but don't expect that your suspicions will be well-founded.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The changes were tendentious and unsupported. With the obtuse way you continued to try to add material that had no consensus to be be added, the only solution was to simply remove that entry point. That's what the discussion was about. So we have accomplished the same thing by trimming the section, and changing the entry point and daughter article. That section still exists so now your RfC is pointless (which reinforces how WP:POINTY it was). --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Tendentious editing means there is a bias to the edits. Can you point to anything specific in my changes to that section that were pushing a bias?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Your repetitive attempts to insert this content and your behavior frustrates the proper editorial processes and discussions. This RfC is a case in point. This RfC is a giant example of your tendentious style. If you notice, all regular editors of this article are frustrated with this RfC. That's tendentious editing in a nutshell. --DHeyward (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That was completely inappropriate Dhey. You have no authority to end the RfC after just five editors involved in the dispute comment. It is for outside input, otherwise I would start a regular discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with The Devil's Advocate. Five editors and a few hours is not enough on a topic like this. I've re-opened the discussion and stated my view. Superm401 - Talk00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
sigh* Under normal circumstances, Superm401, I'd agree. However, TDA has really, really worn out his welcome on this and related articles. There already was a discussion underway, which TDA has undercut with this RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless there was already an RfC, the existing discussion is not a problem. In fact, TDA directed people to it to see the arguments. It is normal for discussions (which often have more than two sides) to be boiled into RfCs. You implied the RfC was unclear, but I disagree. Superm401 - Talk00:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You're an administrator, right? It might be prudent to dwelve deeper into this fiasco...on the surface you're correct, but the issue is more complex than that.--MONGO00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion - looks well sourced and worded well. Would like to point out something that keeps being said about size. Size is not all that important...as seen with WW II or Adolf Hitler certain articles can be and are over sized because of the complexity of the topic. Only need to justify material is worthy.Moxy (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's untrue. Wikipedia tries to keep articles under a certain WP:SIZE for multiple reasons. Articles who go over that typically have sub-sections split into their own articles, provided those sub-sections are notable enough to stand on their own. Some articles grow because their core is just too complex to completely split off, but you'll note the large number of sub-articles to those pages, as well as this one (though not as extreme as your examples). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that readability is very important. The longer an article is, the more difficult it is for our readers to read and understand. The average concentration span is 40 to 50 minutes. Once we exceed that threshold, we make it more difficult for our readers to read and understand an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to resume working on getting the article up to Good article status. Here's the link to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The major issue at the last GA reassessment has been addressed with the cultural impact section. The other major issue was the FAQ (it was out of date and caused more confusion than it solved) and I believe that has been fixed as well. I don't think there are any major issues with the article (although I could be wrong). I think it's mostly clean-up we need to do, and fixing any new issues that have popped up since the GA reassessment. We're over WP:SIZE, for example. I've started working on fixing broken links. Just wondering who else is interested in helping out? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm about half way done verifying all the links work. I'm using Checklinks. For some reason, I'm getting a lot of false positive redirects for CNN. I'm not sure what's going on there. I'm also getting two false 403 forbidden errors for defenselink.mil, but these links seem to work for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've finished verifying that all the links work with the exception of CNN. Checklinks reports all of them are redirects but everyone that I checked looks fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
We are now meeting WP:SIZE's limit of 50kB of readable prose:
File size: 616 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 83 kB
References (including all HTML code): 20 kB
Wiki text: 155 kB Prose size (text only): 49 kB (7994 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1457 B
Have a think about WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and how the article would be viewed by those using a screen-reader. If you don't supply alt text for an image, a screen-reader is likely to announce the filename in its place. For some filenames that can be very annoying, and you can give much better information to visually-impaired readers with well-chosen alt text. Remember the caption is announced immediately afterwards, so pick your alt text to complement the caption, not repeat it.
There's a tutorial on improving the accessibility of data tables that's worth a read. For example, the table in the article would benefit functionally from changing the first row "Deaths (excluding hijackers)" into a caption – although you may not find the way it is rendered as aesthetically pleasing, it is worth it for the benefit it brings to the visually-impaired. Hope that helps, on behalf of the "entourage",
Comments on prose, just covering the lead section.
"(often referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day)": "in combination" dangles; see WP:Checklist#dangling.
"Qaeda", "Qaida": consistent spelling needed
"upon the United States": The bigger the event and the greater the passions, the more important it is to simply describe what happened before getting into the interpretation. Nineteen guys didn't launch an attack on the entire United States that day, even though that's an accepted interpretation; what actually happened was, they destroyed two buildings and damaged a third, killing around 3000 people. "in the United States" would be my call, but if reviewers disagree, Chicago prefers "on" to "upon" unless the word is followed by an event.
"commercial passenger jet airliners": IMO this could be tighter; 4 words, and we still don't have a clear picture of the scale. I'd probably go with "jet airliners carrying x passengers", where x is the total number of passengers.
"thousands of those working in the buildings": more accurate would be "thousands in and around the buildings"
"U.S.", "US": consistency needed.
"The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda members, and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act.": I'd delete "and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act", both because it's impossible to give a quick, neutral description of it suitable for the lead, and because a war isn't in the same category as political blather.
"the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011": That's a few days away ... will it be ready or won't it?
there are MOS issues (overlinking, consistency issues, etc),
Prose issues are evident everywhere, here's a sample:
In the 1998 fatwa, al-Qaeda identified the Iraq sanctions as a reason to kill Americans: "despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million ... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres,
Yes, it's a direct quote, but it is easy enough to figure out how to shorten that quote to avoid three uses of "despite" in two lines. And is it really "once against"? Is that part of the quote? If so, a "sic" is needed.
Suggested fixes by Toa Nidhiki05
I believe issue one has been fixed, but to deal with issues two and three, I suggest we use 'Qaeda' and change the section in question to read "...were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks that were committed in the United States on September 11, 2001, striking the areas of New York City and Washington, D.C.." 23:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed "led by Osama bin Laden" from "Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden" in the info box.[16] The reason why is although Bin Laden was Al Qaeda's leader, he wasn't the leader of the attacks themselves. He approved and financed the attacks, but my understanding is that Mohammed Atta or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed led or organized the attacks. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
For the purposes of the 'Perpetrators' section, that is a good move - if the content for some reason must remain, Atta and Mohammed have to be mentioned due to their roles being just as big, if not even more so, than bin Laden's. ToaNidhiki0522:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Bin Laden appears in the article naturally at the beginning of the second paragraph, and later in context, and of course has his own set of pages. It's difficult and maybe not that useful to describe his role in 9/11 briefly enough to fit in that infobox. In fact, (digressing now) we don't necessarily have to keep that; if it's useful that's fine, but I don't think it's a requirement to have an infobox. The photo montage is pretty good though. Also, the box with Major Attacks by al-Qaeda might go better lower down the page. Tom HarrisonTalk22:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 25 April 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why doesn't the article detail the events of how the terrorists and their weapons got past security? (Would seem particularly notable considering the various air transport security measures that were altered in the aftermath.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead describes the 4 attacks as "striking the area of New York City and Washington". Technically that's incorrect. Although United 93 was intended to strike Washington, it did not and, of course, crashed in Pennsylvania. Better wording might be to add the region of Pennsylvania where 93 went down. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
True, 93 did not reach Washington, but American Airlines Flight 77 did. The crash in Pennsylvania was not a "strike," but apparently a suicide by the attackers to prevent capture. It might be better to revise as "three of which struck New York City and Washington." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Picture caption formatting
This is a small suggestion, and I understand why this article is locked. The caption should read "From top to bottom, left to right," as the explanation of each image is formatted in this way. These images may seem self explanatory now, but in ten years, or twenty, or a hundred, they may not be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.168.157 (talk • contribs) 21:51, March 21, 2012
Correction: I disagree with this it should be left "September 11th 2001 Twin Towers"
Chrisloveswow (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Chris
I am proposing merging the contents of Stairwell A to this article because there is a absolutely nothing significant about that staircase other than it helping saved 18 lives on 9/11. I do not think anything else happened on it before the attacks that is worth mentioning. Therefore, it makes sense to redirect the staircase article to this one and put the contents here, which can easily be done since the staircase article is extremely short and not likely to be expanded. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tom harrison and WheresTristan. In the last several GA/FA reviews, one of the issues brought up was extraneous details. This doesn't seem to be important enough in a top-level article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Are we forgetting that Stairwell A and the survivors staircase are two separate staircases that did not connect? I don't even think they were in the same building.JOJHutton19:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Stairwell A is not as significant as Survivors' Staircase being that the latter remained intact after the towers fell and is planned as a memorial while the former was eventually destroyed. If Stairwell A was that important, it would have been giving a nickname like Survivors' Staircase (e.g. Rescuers' Staircase since it helped 18 people escape the tower), but just leaving it as "Stairwell A" proves its insignificance to the World Trade Center. Also, this paragraph in the "Casualties" section of the article: In the South Tower, one stairwell (A), was left intact after Flight 175 hit, allowing 14 people located on the floors of impact (including one man who saw the plane coming at him) and four more from the floors above to escape. 911 operators who received calls from individuals inside the tower were not well informed of the situation as it rapidly unfolded and as a result, told callers not to descend the tower on their own has the same general information as the Stairwell A article, so not much really is lost if that article gets redirected here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning to resume working on getting the article up to WP:GA status, so we need to resolve this. It appears that consensus is against inclusion of this material in the article. Would anyone else like to weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me know when your planing to start. As i am willing to help replace all this half ass news references with real books.Moxy (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If it is merged, then there should be no penalty or debate if someone re-writes it to be much longer and better. If there is an informal penalty or reluctance to allow a re-creation, the I OPPOSE merger because there is plenty to write about this topic, the reasons while the structure held, the metallurgy, etc. Auchansa (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if we were to merge the articles, the Stairwell A article remains intact as a redirect, so if in the future someone finds substantial, reliable information about the staircase, all they have to do is undo the redirect and add what they found with proper sources. For now, though, it does not make sense for the staircase to have its own article due to its short length and lack of notability other than surviving the plane impact on 9/11. 69.122.92.10 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The merge template was at the top of the article way too long. Ive gone ahead and done a crude merge, please edit as needed. 69.122 wrote If it is merged, then there should be no penalty or debate if someone re-writes it to be much longer and better. - There's only so much that can be said about the subject. In the context of this article, it doesn't deserve more than a paragraph or so. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Terrorists incorrectly linked
I have just noticed that the link for terrorists incorrectly links to the terrorism article and not the terrorist one which is strange. I am not sure how you change the link so could someone else do this please? Tcla75 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, I have recently found an Israeli website www.debka.co.il, which is written in English and in Hebrew. In English the site is called debkafile, in Hebrew tikdebka. The Hebrew version gives under "mi anachnu" (who are we - or - about us) an interesting text. It says, that debka had foreknowledge of the attacks, already in May 2000, 16 months before the actual attacks. I would like to translate this Hebrew text for Wikipedia. Since this is the first time that I ever try to edit a text in Wikipedia I just start by writing this here. Greetings, MartinPeaceinchrist (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
12.7.3
from September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack, Collapse of the World Trade Center:
The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers likely would have remained standing.[262] A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.[263][264]
Aviation fuel (Jet fuel/ Jet A-1 is a mixture of kerosene and antifreeze) Kerosene burns at 430*F. Gasoline burns at 500*, wood and books burn at 450*, acrylic plastic burns at 560*, nylon at 530*, cotton at 250*, rubber at 320*, vaporized LNG (Methane) 1K* F; most of the jet fuel/kerosene ignited in the 200x400 ft fireballs outside the towers on impact.
There was nothing really in the towers to burn at the +1,000*F to weaken 47 three inch thick CORE box column beams and worldwide in the ten years since, how many other building have fallen demolition style like the three did in one day Sept 2001, esp since one of the three was not even hit by an airplane?Bhug (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This section seems to be of minor relevance for a very general article such as this one. It's also unclear whether there was a separate investigation on the stairwell. Cs32enTalk to me21:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
There was, until recently, a separate article for "stairwell A". Although I agree with the merge, the article was merged here and I would not support any removal of this section at this time. It does have some relevance to the day.JOJHutton21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
That article tends to be more about the structural integrity of the building, it's collapse, and the subsequent investigation. Not a whole lot about the evacuation of the building. --JOJHutton21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought that we already agreed in the discussion above[17] to not merge this content into this article? At least the majority of those commenting seemed to. Again, this seems like unneeded extraneous detail to me. I've removed the content from the article but am including it here so that the content isn't lost:
Stairwell A
Stairwell A
Stairwell A was the lone stairway left intact after the second plane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks. It was believed to have remained intact until the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am. 14 people were able to escape the floors located at the impact zone (including Stanley Praimnath, who saw the plane coming at him), and 4 people from the floors above the impact zone. Numerous police hotline operators who received calls from individuals inside the South Tower were not well informed of the situation as it rapidly unfolded in the South Tower. Many operators told callers not to descend the tower on their own, even though it is now believed that Stairwell A was most likely passable at and above the point of impact. [1] Note Stairwell A is different from the so-called Survivors' Staircase.
Stairwell A currently redirects to this article. Removing the section removes any and all mention of the stairwell from Wikipedia all together. Maybe not notable enough for its own article, but at least notable enough for a small mention in this article.JOJHutton14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's problematic that, under Attackers and their Background, the fact that the U.S. supported the mujahadeen (and indirectly Osama bin Laden) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the Cold War isn't mentioned. This is a prime example of how shotty and desperate U.S. foreign policy contributed to the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and does a disservice in documenting and explaining the reprehensible 9/11 attacks. --Retrospector87 (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. never supported bin Laden. The support to Afghan rebels could be added to the article, but it's easy to see how it could get overly lengthy and politicized. I will say, though, that U.S. officials involved in the operation are largely unapologetic about it. They generally maintain that the mujahideen would have prevailed against the Soviets regardless, and that the Soviet Union was a major state sponsor of terrorist groups (as were some of its Arab allies).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that deserves at most a brief mention, linked to an appropriate article which can discuss the matter more thoroughly. Retrospector87 has a point that the US indirectly supported Bin Laden, as he was one of the rebels in question during the Soviet invasion, but it's a very tenuous link. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Demonstrating "how shotty and desperate U.S. foreign policy contributed to the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda" isn't valid consideration when determining article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"widebody aircraft" accurate in half of the cases (767 - yes, 757 - no)
The 757 is not a widebody aircraft, which is typically defined as a twin-aisle plane. If this has been previously posted, my apologies. I looked for 15 minutes or so and could not find another similar reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.231 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I honestly have trouble seeing a place for this in the article. It roughly overlaps with the Cultural Impact, so adding a section on Iconography seems like too much detail, especially for a long article. Maybe there's a way to expand the Cultural Impact section with a sentence or two from Iconography of 9-11, I don't know. If someone wants to propose some text, that's fine. But I don't see this as a separate section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Tom Harrison's suggestion probably makes the most sense. If no one comes up with anything better soon (let's say in a couple more days) then I will replace the merge here proposal with that. David_FLXD(Talk)11:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change to duration of attacks
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I think the "date" bit in the infobox should be changed. It currently says the attacks began at 8:46 a.m., the time the first flight hit the World Trade Center, but it actually began much earlier. According to the timeline the first aircraft (Flight 11) was hijacked at 8:14, so I would propose changing the start time to 8:14. Thoughts? Michael5046 (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Would also like to point out that flight attendant Karen Martin, flight attendant Barbara Arestegui and passenger Daniel Lewin (all on Flight 11) were stabbed well before 8:46 a.m., before the plane hit the World Trade Center. So I think it makes more sense to change the duration, even though the attacks may have begun at 8:46 a.m. to most people.Michael5046 (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th or 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four suicide attacks that were committed in the United States on September 11, 2001" The suicide attacks started at 8:46 a.m.. Just as we don't count the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand as the start of WW1, we shouldn't count the first victim as the beginning of the attacks. Travürsa (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
While that is the more logical ordering, the "month/day/year" order is the usual standard in the United States where these attacks occurred. --Khajidha (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Inside Job
In the name of impartiality, there should be mention of the hotly disputed attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Millions if not billions of people think it was an inside job. Given that the opening paragraph assumes the official story, it would add more credibility to Wikipedia to mention that a false flag operation is suspected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.254.5 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, if you're going to begin your argument with "In the name of impartiality..." then your argument should also be impartial. "Millions if not billions" believe it was an inside job? You know there are only 300 million in America, and 7 billion in the world, right? To use actual numbers and verifiable facts, mainstream polls show less than 1/3 of Americans are "truthers", but that includes people who believe that it was al-Qaeda, but that the government knew about the threat and simply did nothing. Should it be mentioned in this article as an alternate hypothesis? Yes, but not for the reasons you gave. For future reference: when arguing for including something in an article, your argument should be based on verifiability, not simply truth. Any peer reviews that do exist of those Steven E. Jones claims added below are negative; therefore, Jones is not a reliable source. However, there are reliable sources that describe the 9/11 conspiracy theories in neutral terms, as seen at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of course, the length and detail about the conspiracy theories at that article is much more than what should be added here. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting comments from this section, saying that there are personal attacks.
On the other hand, someone call pseudoscience / denialism to peer reviewable scientific papers.
Mostly not peer reviewed; mostly not science. Steven E. Jones is not even qualified to comment on the topic. The "truthers" need to get on the stick and publish some actual science in respectable journals. We can use information that satisfies WP:RS. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the poster at the top. The science for the official theory is bad science, very bad science. Its been proven there were controlled demolitions. But consider this: too much has happened since 9/11 based on 9/11 in fact justified by 9/11 that when the bad science is exposed the criminals will be tried. They know this. Hence they man this site and keep up the charade. So be it, lets let it play out. Only bout 46% of the population accept the official Al Q conspiracy, and shrinking....tick tick times running out baddies --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is terribly biased. There are two main oppositions to the official story neither of which is mentioned in the article. One is the idea of a False Flag attack, which is to say that the US Government had advanced knowledge of the attack, but chose to ignore it for political reasons. The other is the Inside Job theory, that the US Government itself was behind the attack. Neither of these are mainstream, but both have enough visibility that it is irresponsible not to mention them and to add links to the main articles. Mthed (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article very very unbalanced which is against Wikipedia policy. So called minority views are supposed to be represented. 30% believe Israel the USA and another did it. (see Wikipedia stats) 25% dont know who did it, but dont accept that it was Al Q. The CIA Bin Laden Tapes. Scroll down and go to A - E Bin laden and spot MR McGoo Bin Laden. The bin Laden tapes are frauds it seems. BTW I request we have this in the article, with some reliable refs of course. Discussion please. The http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_binladen01.htmHumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution.
Just saying. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
But wait theres more. In their book, the chairman and vice chairman, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail." Senior counsel John Farmer, Jr., wrote that the US government made "a decision not to tell the truth about what happened," and that the NORAD "tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public." Kean said, "We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."
Only one of amusement that every time this year we get the same rejected argument. I would ask you to browse the archives to see why your arguments have been rejected many times in the past, but we both know that won't be happening. You have already shown bad faith by claiming that the editors here are trying to protect criminals. Given the nature of your actions, I see no further reason to head you any mind. --Tarage (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually thats good faith. If people block reliable referenced material in wiki that is against policy. If the other version of 9/11 is proven in time the criminals will be a new set of criminals. Thats all Im saying. The article is unbalanced and needs a major overhaul. I dont have time to do it BTW, hopefully someday someone will. Im amused also, at you. Laughs all round. IMHO Its just amazing so many have been fooled for so long and how they defend the system that has duped them. Less than 46% believe the official version, (from Wikipedia). That is not a majority. BTW dont vandalize this page again with the hat tag. Its very childish. I note you have many warnings about personal attacks and other editing complaints. You seem to have an attitude problem based on past edit warnings HumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I can make up statics too. Meanwhile, I look forward to seeing your POV excluded from these pages for as long as I am an editor. --Tarage (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Also what the hell? You are the one who vandalized MY talk page with a hat tag. I did no such thing to you, or this page. I'm starting to wonder if you really realize what is going on. --Tarage (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay I am completely lost as to what you are talking about. Either you are confusing me for someone else or you have some warped view about what I have done to talk pages. You are the one who vandalized my talk page with an errant tag. All I did was put a statement on your talk page requesting you not vandalize it again. If you think I did anything else you are mistaken, and you can check my edit history.
Getting back to the main point, you have had several editors tell you that your requested edits are not in line with Wikipedia policy. You seem to have been around long enough to understand this, so I hope you will simply let it go and move on. However, if you do continue to try to push POV onto this page, you may find yourself under sanctions. Perhaps I should add that warning to your talk page since you seem unaware. --Tarage (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
My sincere apologies Tarage. It was this user. The Blade of the Northern Lights at 13:14, 11 September 2012. The other matters you raise are superfluous HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This doco below is hard science, made by an organization set up by the families of victims of 9/11. These relatives are still upset 11 years on and the official version has not provided answers. In fact they believe its a lie. See film. Thats why this wont go away. Healing = truth. As people heal in time this article here will reflect truth, although with current gatekeepers, this will take some time. However be that as it may, there is explosive evidence in this film, references now in print, which determines nano thermite blew up 9/11 in a controlled demolition with extremely strong corroborating evidence in journals and books. See film to see yourself. The end of the doco deals with why people deny the truth, which may be instructive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBCu_pvhnzQHumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source. There are no 'gatekeepers' here. Unless you have reliable sources to bring to the table, enough to counter the mountain of sources agreeing with the official explanation, you are simply wasting your time here. I see no reason to continue to humble this discussion. --Tarage (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
HumasCowboy...your conspiracy theories are nothing new and are just as preposterous as the others that have been presented here over the years.MONGO17:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
HumusCowboy: Your concern is appreciated, but please recognize that very solid and reliably sourced information is required for any changes to this article. There are many important and reliably sourced issues which the article fails to address, but they will need to be presented in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. Youtube videos will almost always fail to meet the requirements; especially on this article. The nano-thermite hypothesis is currently undergoing renewed scrutiny, following a study by James Millette, a professional in the field of dust analysis. The results of this study indicate that the red-gray chips are almost certainly paint rather than nano-thermite, as was previously hypothesized. This is something which the 9/11 Truth movement will need to accept (and increasingly is accepting, as the Millette study becomes known), in absence of any stronger counter evidence. There are plenty of non-hypothetical issues which could and should be mentioned in the article, and with good sourcing and experienced editing, they will eventually find their place in the 9/11 story, as documented by this article. Wildbear (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@ Wildbear. RE You Tube, yes of course its unreliable, I know how this works. This movie is a pointer of what is out there, as I mentioned. My point is this. Due to this organization 9/11 Truth, published material is available now e.g top of their field scientists finding nano thermite explosive in 9/11 dust on wide scale.
Consider also: Using this Wiki graph here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories and knowing Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Why is this article so biased? This survey shows less than half of respondents hold to the official version. Yet this 46%s views are all that are mentioned. Can you see why people are suspicious? I point to the very recent revert by the user Jojhutton of a sensible little paragraph which exemplified the NPOV Wikipedia protocol. Im sure there have been many battles over this article. I dont care about that. The article is not NPOV as it stands IMHO. RE Millette study, will he explain how kerosene melts steel? HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Lunatic fringes do not get equal weight, just like no matter how many ignorant Arabs and white supremacists believe the Holocuast was faked we won't report them equally. So no matter how many ignorant lunatics believe 9/11 was an inside job, we won't give them equal (or even any) attention. This article is on fact, not fiction, and the fact is 9/11 was not an inside job. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your conspiracy theory. ToaNidhiki0501:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
@ Toa Re WP:DUE 'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents' These significant minorities currently get no say. Thats not NPOV. You know it. 02:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
@ Toa stick to the subject. I dont care about the Holocaust. From WP:FRINGE re Conspiracy theories, Given this popular understanding of the term, it can also be used illegitimately and inappropriately, as a means to dismiss what are in fact substantial and well-evidenced accusations.
We all know this happens, and is what is happening in degrees. Its called politics. In time the science will win out in this case. Even so the article is not now NPOV HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't really been following this discussion, but the "set up to fail" quote is not important enough to include in this article. I'm surprised this discussion has lasted as long as it has. Someone should close it down. It's a waste of time to dwell on this further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
@ A Quest For Knowledge Re "set up to fail" quote. Who said it should be in the article? That notion sir is a time wasting conspiracy. It is clear you have not been following the thread. Obfuscation and distraction. And so it goes on, the quest for Knowledge has hit a wall here. :/ God help the families of the victims when this article is so non NPOV 02:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
ps. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article.
The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else.
So NPOV could be easily incorporated here in this article but for unknown reasons its not. These reasons seem to be emotionally charged and POV. They may be related to previous edit conflicts. But whatever they are they have no place in Wikipedia.
The defence to not have a NPOV using WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE is unfounded.
Re WP:DUE 'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents' . As evidenced by these New York polls.
The first Zoby poll in August 2004, found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.
The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. 42% think 9/11 was a Cover-up.
Responses: 43% Not Aware of World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day.
The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11. The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment.
HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on neutrality is not determined by public opinion polls. Instead, neutrality is achieved by giving a fair summary of the opinion found in the relevant scholarly, academic, or expert community. There are few, if any, prominent historians who ascribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories. So, the number of people in the general public who say believe in 9/11 CT in opinion polls is irrelevant. About a fifth of Americans think that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that atoms are smaller than electrons.[18] That doesn't mean we rewrite these articles to reflect the beliefs of the ignorant or the paranoid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Re polls, its hardly irrelevant. Re scholarly, academic, or experts? 1700 experts are significant, but dont get a mention. Lets just mention the Elephant in the room. Nothing will change here, yet, because the power systems remain the same, for now. If the conspiracy people have a case, after filtering out the wackos and distractions, then a lot is at stake here at this article. Nothing short of the Crime of this century. If the conspiracy people have a case, maintaining the official line in this article would be a front line task for the powers that be. (who will deny of course). However it is achieved, it is a fact if the conspiracy people are right, this article will remain non NPOV, because those in power (for now) demand it,. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Polls are irrelevant on Wikipedia. As far as the 1700 "experts", they're either not actual experts, have failed to publish substantive research, or have failed to convince the mainstream media and scholarship that they represent anything but a fringe opinion. There are fringe views in every profession: they're rife in medicine and law: aviation, engineering and architecture are no different. Acroterion(talk)01:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Re 'I don't see much that we can do for you here'. We??? Wikipedia isnt a club Acroterion. Ownership issues? Anyway time will tell. I heard once all of mankind thought the Earth revolved around the Sun, now its just a fifth of Americans. I will wager in time these other 1700 ++ experts will prove the official 9/11 story is a story and has holes in it. IMHO even right now they deserve a mention and even now some odd things could be in there, like the 'Five Dancing Israelis'. Heres the thing: I always edit NPOV, its honourable and fair. I dont have anything to hide. The way this site is defended despite NPOV breeches is evidence to me that an agenda is in place. Refer to advocacy and neutrality. HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You've made your point, and appear to be moving on to general soapboxing. If a consensus develops to include additional material on fringe viewpoints, that will happen in time. Right now, I don't see any such consensus: rather the opposite. This was discussed in greater length late last year, with a few adjustments made. Nothing new has come to light since then that would appear to suggest a change in that consensus. Acroterion(talk)01:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Humus, you seem to think this article is run by paid operatives of the US government or that we are high-level government officials, so I think what he means is pretty clear. There isn't any agenda here - you are the one with the agenda, pushing your absurd denialism and trying to get this article to represent the way you imagine things happened. Well, guess what, we don't work like that here - your agenda does not comply with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, etc. ToaNidhiki0501:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
From what I have seen some editors here are very quick to accuse other of soapboxing, some even border on the personal attack. Wheres the fire? Whats the hurry to close debate? Give others a chance to read contribute. Give more editors the chance to actually read the threads. Or, why not? Thats a reasonable thing to do and the norm on most other Wiki talk pages. I dont understand this urgency seen here to close threads, shut down debate. After all Wikipedia is edited by amateurs who work, play etc. Whats the agenda? HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
@HumusCowboy: Because your proposal was DOA. I already explained how NPOV works. If you don't like how NPOV works, start a discussion on the NPOV talkpage and try to get the policy changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Re Humus, 'you seem to think this article is run by paid operatives of the US government or that we are high-level government officials'. Not so Toa, I sense you are looking for an excuse to tag another thread prematurely. Why is that BTW? NO Reread more carefully, I know its subtle, but its called critical thinking HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
If the conspiracy people have a case, maintaining the official line in this article would be a front line task for the powers that be. (who will deny of course)
The agenda is an article that reflects prominent mainstream sources. So far you've offered a rather random selection of Truther themes, together with aspersions against those who feel you're advocating an inappropriate level of fringe speculation. If you're just here to expound on conspiracy theories, then you're at the wrong encyclopedia (or at least the wrong article). Acroterion(talk)01:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I in fact offer you only the chance to upgrade the article to true NPOV status. I confess to that as an agenda. Do not lecture as if Im at the wrong Encyclopedia Acroterion. Ask instead yourself questions, perhaps the first being, why are you all so edgy about making this article NPOV? HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"Edgy"? Perhaps you are mistaken about what is actually "NPOV"? Several people have explained it to you. Including fringe theories and unreliable sources is a gross violation of NPOV and keeping that out is our agenda. Antandrus (talk)02:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh I know exactly what NPOV is. @ Toa, re your quote in box. Its called rational conjecture. Think about it. You could dismiss so much conspiracy talk if the article was NPOV, then some editors would actually look reasonable, not like gate keepers HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyway boys. Lets keep this openness up and see who else comes in to add to it in the interest of Wikipedia and knowledge, which is why we are here after all. Now like you all, being the Amatuer editors we are, I have Commitments now HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Pulling outa this disaster....its not time to get this much truth thru ...yet.......delete this thread robot homeland security boys.......or join us....the free....the resistance Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Unable to convince the blind that the facts are all wrong and that the article should instead report on the fantasies as facts, the latest round of truthers or their socks ride off into the sunset.MONGO11:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The blind are you lot, but we're done here, well you guys are at you're threshold, put it that way. You will see in you're lifetime you're Mac World come down then some of you may wake up, but it'll be too late to do much, you'll just have to ride it out. BTW that aint no sunset, its the glow of future chaos and war Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
And yet you keep posting even after saying you are done. If you truly believe this is a lost cause, then leave. Don't post here anymore. Here, I'll help you. --Tarage (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
Not moved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose unless there is some other significant non-terrorism related attack that took place on September 11th the addition of terrorist seems unnecessary. I also doubt that anyone would be confusion on what event is being described when September 11 attacks is used.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Date of bin Laden's death
Date of Bin Laden death is correct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The second paragraph of this article states that bin Laden was located and killed in May of 2011, which is incorrect. The correct year should be 2012.
The wording "political arena" replaced "geopolitics" following a discussion on the talk page about the wording. An editor subsequently restored the old wording and I do not see any indication that the revert was discussed here, though the editor said there was another discussion which got consensus for the change. I think "geopolitics" is far too narrow a term for what we are saying in that sentence and the previous wording should be restored. Thoughts?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The section preceding the cultural impact section doesn't mention anything of a geopolitical nature, focusing instead on the impact on domestic politics in various countries. It is thus quite imprecise to use the term "geopolitics" in this context. You thinking it "looks fine" is not sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I remember that discussion. Was the title the only thing that was changed? If so, do you have any idea who? We didn't really have a strong consensus for either side if I remember correctly. The article has other issues that are perhaps more important. --Tarage (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Wording. What have you. My point stands that there are more important issues to deal with, but I still don't see a problem with changing it. I don't have a strong opinion either way. --Tarage (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
"Political arena" sounds like partisan competition between the Reds and the Blues, and doesn't really fit here. "Geopolitics" is fine, and gives the reader a better counterpoint to lead into culture and society. Tom HarrisonTalk10:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Geopolitics isn't fine as I just explained. Originally, I had just removed the "geo" from geopolitics, but we agreed to "political arena" in the discussion. If you think just plain "politics" is better then that is fine, but it is silly to keep the imprecise term "geopolitics" based solely on the word being "fine" as you are suggesting. We don't keep grammatical errors just because someone thinks it's "not a big deal" to have such errors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I say we throw everything that doesn't have a direct relation to the attacks themselves into daughter articles...starting with that nonsense about the conspiracy theories...a bunch of see also links to the stuff not directly about the events of the day should suffice...MONGO18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I am comparing this to fixing a grammatical error because it is a minor improvement that has no POV impact on the article. All it does is introduce more logically consistent wording. "Geopolitics" refers to a narrowly-defined variant of politics, one that is not even alluded to in the preceding subsection. No one has given any decent reason so far why this word is important enough to keep in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
"'Political arena' sounds like partisan competition between the Reds and the Blues, and doesn't really fit here. 'Geopolitics' is fine, and gives the reader a better counterpoint to lead into culture and society." Mongo and Tarage (if I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth) also make the point that choosing the right word is usually matter for editorial judgement. Moreover, clearly it isn't a non-controversial edit, since here we are. Tom HarrisonTalk12:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It is a completely absurd controversy forced mostly by AQFK's stubborn insistence on repeatedly restoring the wording he likes for no reason other than him liking it. Under normal circumstances, there would be no need for discussion as people wouldn't be reverting such inconsequential adjustments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone's "stubborn insistence on repeatedly restoring the wording he likes for no reason other than him liking it" would be get annoying over time, but I don't see AQFK doing that. Tom HarrisonTalk14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And someones stubbor insistence on changing the current wording, even when multiple editors oppose the change, is textbook example of POV pushing. MONGO14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no "POV-pushing" angle here, dude. Tarage has basically said "do it", and I happen to agree that I should be able to just fix it, but I know that is just going to mean one of you reverts it with the typical "no consensus" argument. A whole lot of energy has been wasted just to keep this small change from sticking, based off little other than "I just don't like it" arguments. No decent argument has been given for keeping "geopolitics" here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record I am not for or against either wording. Like I said, I think there are more important issues to deal with, but that isn't a vote for or against. I'm abstaining. --Tarage (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
TDA....you've been twice topic banned from this topic and blocked twice for violating your topic bans and you're here arguoing over the same thing that you were arguing about before your last topic ban and you expect anyone to not see that as POV pushing?MONGO15:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
@1292simon: Can you please stop edit-warring?[19][20] I reverted your last redirect.[21] The AfD appears to be have been closed as 'keep', not 'redirect'. What's more, your rationale for redirecting (sourcing can be improved) is not a valid reason to do a redirect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Woops, I'm really sorry, I was not aware of the AfD when I changed it the 2nd time. It is not my intention to edit war, I was going through some old articles tagged for cleanup and thought that moving it here might get some more editors working to fix it up. Thanks for the link to the AfD discussion. 1292simon (talk)
If the intent is to okay this section and use it as justification to use the section you did not quote, no. --Tarage (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm in favor of reducing the article to about 5 sections and trimming the coatrack stuff out. But I don't have a problem with your adding tha above.MONGO20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
“
Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Said Bahaji, and sixteen others were all members.
Reworded: "Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Said Bahaji were all members of the Hamburg cell." Tobby72 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Scholarly paper analyzing this article, with focus on (enjoy...) conspiracy theories and their exclusion
Happily this is about the German Wikipedia article on September 11. From the abstract, "This [exclusion of conspiracy theories] is achieved by rigorously excluding knowledge which is not verified by external expert authorities." Good for them. Also from the abstract, "The conflicting points of view overload the discursive capacity of the contributors." O yah, you betcha. Tom HarrisonTalk02:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that "discursive capacity" remark made me laugh. Less funny was their use of the word "knowledge" -- see the Euler diagram in this section of the epistomology article -- presuming that "knowledge" is in the area where "belief" and "truth" overlap, I have a problem with the assumptions they are bringing with them to the writing of this paper. Is a belief that someone flew missiles into the buildings, or planted explosives cleverly timed to go off right when planes hit, "knowledge"? I think some other words may apply more precisely. Antandrus (talk)02:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Destruction of the WTC complex
Perhaps the following addition to the lead might be informative:
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours, and the debris from the collapse destroyed all the other buildings in the complex.
It seems to be a widely held misconception amongst "conspiracy theorists" that only three of the buildings were destroyed, and a widely held misconception elsewhere that no other buildings surrounding the towers were destroyed. Adding this information to the lead may highlight a fact which seems to have been overlooked. At the same time, I am not sure whether this information is important enough to merit inclusion in the lead; Wikipedia isn't really about "writing for an audience", is it. What do you think? Narssarssuaq (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I would support including it because the destruction of those buildings caused hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in property damage at the very least (and I believe a few people died in them). ToaNidhiki0502:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The debris destroyed all the other buildings in the complex...then in the article adding...A half dozen other buildings suffered major structural damage.[24]--MONGO07:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as this wording is not even close to correct. With the exception of the 7 World Trade Center all of the other buildings at WTC were taken down by demolition crews to make way for reconstruction. I think saying "debris from the collapse destroyed" any building is quite inappropriate in this context. Even WTC7 was concluded to have collapsed as a result of fires so to say it was "destroyed" by the debris is rather misleading.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
None of the structures at the complex were usable after the attacks including the adjacent Marriot. "Not even close to correct"...huh?In this image, 7WTC is at far left, 6WTC is just to the right of that with a massive hole which destroyed 80% of its roof, 5WTC at upper showing massive damage to the side and roof, the two towers and near the red crane at lower right, the completely destroyed Marriott That was the old WTC complex and it was completely destroyed.--MONGO18:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
That image is misleading.
WTC6 is looking very not destroyed
WTC5 has lots of debris on the roof and has some holes but was definitely not destroyed.
The Marriot WTC got severely damaged, but is still very much not destroyed.
WTC4 got badly hit, but still looks very much like it was not destroyed.
Saying these buildings were "destroyed" by the debris is an unhelpful exaggeration. I think maybe you could substitute "severely damaged" for "destroyed", but I am not sure why we would need to mention this in the lede of the article at all. Relative to the other aspects of the attacks, the damage caused to surrounding buildings is not important enough to mention in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Can't see how there could be so much destruction without the complex being destroyed. I tend to favor something like the proposed wording, but am open to other ideas. Tom HarrisonTalk19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
@TDA...Not an exaggeration in the least...your side view of 6WTC doesn't show that the center of the building, including 80% of the roof was crushed all the way to below street level. The Marriott image shows only the bottom few floors...it used to be a 22 storey building! None of the buildings survived the attacks...they were all either already collapsed or in danger of doing so and HAD to be removed...are you arguing just to be contrary or unable to properly examine even basic photographic documentation?--MONGO19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
How about the Deutsche Bank Building which was 200 feet south of WTC2 yet was subsequently demolished after suffering massive damage to its north side
Just word to be general - something like - "The 'aftermath from fires and collapsed towers damaged the surrounding complex of buildings extensively. This lead to them being demolish over time."20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Words matter people. Connotation matters. Saying the buildings were "destroyed" by debris is vague and could mislead readers into thinking the buildings were all reduced to rubble by falling debris like in some sort of Kaiju film when this is not the case. As I am sure a number of you are interested in seeing this article regain GA status, you should consider that there is nothing "clear" in saying the WTC buildings were "destroyed" by debris.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I am with TDA here. I think that the word "destroy" conveys an insufficient amount of detail. It would only take a sentence to give an overview of the damage.--Adam in MOTalk20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
How about "Damaged beyond repair"? 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.73.51 (talk)
Support the OP's original point: The lede should address the fact that more than three buildings of the WTC complex were lost in the attacks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The four other buildings were demolished months later to make way for reconstruction. None of them were "lost in the attacks" so the lede shouldn't say that. If we note what happened to those other buildings in the lede it should be in the context of the reconstruction as that is where it is most pertinent to an introduction to the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Two commercial airliners were hijacked, and each was flown into one of the two 110-story towers. The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building. As the towers collapsed, massive debris clouds consisting of crushed and broken building components fell onto and blew into surrounding structures, causing extensive collateral damage and, in some cases, igniting fires and causing additional collapses. In total, 10 major buildings experienced partial or total collapse and approximately 30 million square feet of commercial office space was removed from service, of which 12 million belonged to the WTC Complex. — Executive Summary, FEMA 403
That appears to be including the twin towers and WTC 7 so "total collapse" would most likely refer to those buildings and the others suffered "partial collapse", which is not sufficiently descriptive and does not fit with saying they were "lost in the attacks" as that implies more than a partial collapse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
We can easily avoid "most likely" by going to the sources...
Properties in and around the WTC Complex that sustained full collapse, partial collapse or major damage as a result of the 2001 WTC attacks.
#
Building
Damage
Square Feet
1
WTC 1 (North Tower)
Full collapse
4,761,716
2
WTC 2 (South Tower)
Full collapse
4,761, 716
3
WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel)
Full collapse
584,600
4
WTC 4 (South East Plaza)
Partial collapse
576,000
5
WTC 5 (North East Plaza)
Partial collapse
783,520
6
WTC 6 (Custom House)
Partial collapse
537,693
7
WTC 7
Full collapse
2,000,000
8
Greek Orthodox Church (155 Cedar Street)
Full collapse
1,232
9
North Bridge (from Winter Garden to WTC 1)
Full collapse
8,000
10
2 WFC Tower B (125 West St.)
Major Damage
2,591,244
11
3 WFC Tower C (200 Vessey St.)
Major Damage
2,263,855
12
Winter Garden Building (201 Vessey St.)
Major Damage
54,000
13
1 Bankers Trust Plaza (130 Liberty St.)
Major Damage
1,415,086
14
120 Cedar St.
Major Damage
18,319
15
Engineering Building (114 Liberty St.)
Major Damage
69,000
16
130 Cedar St.
Major Damage
135,000
17
90 West St.
Major Damage
350,000
18
140 West St. (Verizon)
Major Damage
1,171,540
19
45 Park Place
Major Damage
75,000
20
30 West Broadway
Major Damage
381,000
Where...
a collapse or partial collapse of a building represents a 100% damage ratio, while moderate damage would be an approximately 20% damage ratio.[p.8]...Overall, property damage in the devastation zone surrounding the WTC complex totals $22.7 billion.[p.9] — Source: Grossi, P. (2009). "Property Damage and Insured Losses from the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks"(PDF). Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. 15 (2). doi:10.2202/1554-8597.1163.
"Partially collapsed" is not the same as "destroyed" and the "full collapse" description is not really a precise description for the WTC3, though it definitely suffered the worst damage of the four other buildings in the WTC complex. We should only mention something in the lede if it is significant to the subject and we should make sure our words do not mislead. I do not see anything to suggest that the damage other buildings suffered during the attacks is really significant to the subject of the attacks. So far the only rationale presented has been some desire to nitpick conspiracy theorists, which is not an appropriate basis for adding content to the lede of this article. Using such vague language would be even more of a disservice.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal(s)
Proposal A
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Debris from the collapse of the towers fell onto or initiated fires in several surrounding buildings leading to the partial or complete collapse of all the other buildings in the complex and major damage to ten other major structures in the area.
This is just too much information for the lede and quite unnecessary. Aside from the collapse of the towers, the collapse of WTC 7 is the only somewhat noteworthy event in the context of the attacks. Your suggestion would actually give more space to the damage caused by the collapse than the collapse itself. I believe we could make a minor addition to say something to the effect that "and the debris caused substantial damage to the surrounding buildings" with WTC 7 possibly noted briefly as having collapsed and then expanding the sentence on the cleanup to mention buildings being demolished due to extensive damage. As it stands the lede is not a succinct summary of the article so it would be better to avoid detailing these minors aspects the way you have here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look bad, but needs to be trimmed. It isn't entirely accurate though since we know one landing gear actually landed on the roof of a building 300 feet north of the south tower and fell through at least 3 floors....so not all the damage was from the towers collapsing. I'd prefer the version that was mentioned a couple weeks back.--MONGO03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
How about...Debris from the collapsing towers fell onto or initiated fires in several surrounding buildings leading to the partial or complete collapse of all the other buildings in the complex. Debris also caused major damage to ten other large structures in the immediate area.--MONGO03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a case where Occam's razor applies: a misunderstanding based on mistranslation makes the most sense, not "a huge conspiracy to cover up a hijacked airliner." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm So, no interest in actually looking up the background of this dispute, then? Alright. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done and not likely to be done See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Dru of Id (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
WTC6 is looking very not destroyed
WTC5 has lots of debris on the roof and has some holes but was definitely not destroyed.
The Marriot WTC got severely damaged, but is still very much not destroyed.
WTC4 got badly hit, but still looks very much like it was not destroyed.
