Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 57

(arbitrary break)

I agree with Geometry guy "the article to acknowledge briefly that they exist and have had a cultural impact, but that they are widely discredited:" (my bolding). I also agree that slippery slope arguments are poor, bordering on fallacy. I think any reasonable user of an online encyclopedia would expect a mention of the conspiracy theories and a general link. This is not undue weight, and gives them no additional credibility - see bolding above. (Hohum ^@) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Tom harrison and topic banning Mongo. "If the whole article as written is worthless crap, write a new one in your user space. Propose it here, and if people prefer it, yours will replace the existing one." When I get a chance maybe I'll do that. Considering that twelve of the images currently on the existing page were added by me and at least six were uploaded by me i would say I have a good start. As far as the "conspiracy theories", there is a differance between a "Some people claim to have seen Elvis leave the WTC prior to the attacks" "conspiracy theory" and valid "controversy" such as why the recovered steel was being shipped to China while the ruins were still smoldering over the objections of numerous fire engineers and architects.

• Attack on Pearl Harbor has Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory because it's part of history.
• Assassination of John F. Kennedy has a section on Assassination conspiracy theories
• Martin Luther King, Jr. has a section Assassination and its aftermath with the subsection Allegations of conspiracy
• Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy has Alternative theories with subsections CIA involvement theory and Second gunman theory
• Gulf of Tonkin incident the pretext for involvement in Vietnam has "Distortion of the event" nad "NSA report" which includes this "idiotic notion", 41 years after the fact:

In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors.

• Moon landing has "Hoax accusations"

The "controversies" surrounding the September 11 attacks have had a profound effect on US public opinion and world opinion, they are not only a part of history but still have an effect today. Anyone who is not cognizant of that fact and can't see the relevance of mentioning this in an article on the September 11 attacks should probably should go find something else to do instead of making veiled little threats about "personal attacks", "topic banning" blah, blah, etc. against people who are trying to improve the quality and content of the material on Wikipedia. 7mike5000 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. You have provided no reason why WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY should be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:NPOV is "not" including the fact that at least 1/3 of Americans do not believe the official version of events. "Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy" . this is actually well written:September 11 attacks opinion polls. If they are fringe theories you don't debunk them by ignoring their existence in the main article. The "controversies also extend into the aftermath of the attacks.

• The Washington Times:EDITORIAL: 9/11 cover-up; Government muzzles officer, censors key information about terror attacks Officer in question worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency
• The Guardian:9/11 - the big cover-up? Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'
• Discover magazine: The 9/11 Cover-Up:Thousands of New Yorkers were endangered by WTC debris—and government malfeasance
• CBS news:9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

These guys have credentials: Pilots For 9/11 Truth . they have no theories beyond that the whole truth hasn't been told: Yet people with no verifiable credentials just pseudonyms like MONGO and a A Quest For Knowledge decide that they know more and everyone else has "idiotic notions" and "fringe theories". Likewise major news organizations have reported on the "controversies" yet Wikipedia which vaunts itself on being "neutral" has a little cabal who are being anything but as there is nary a mention in the main article. 7mike5000 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• New York Times editorial by Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission: Stonewalled by the C.I.A.

"the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation"~Thomas Kean.

Okay all done bye bye 7mike5000 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So what? About a third of Americans think that lasers work by focusing sound waves. We don't write articles based on the ignorance of the general public. Instead, we write articles based on experts and reliable sources.
If I may paraphrase Jimbo Wales e-mail of September 2003:
What do mainstream history texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream history community on this point?

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant historian minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use boilerplates to reply to specific comments. 7mike5000 has provided reliable sources for a number of issues which might be considered for inclusion in the article. They should be considered. Geometry guy 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The truth about what's going here has surely been evident for some time now. This article is designed to be a memorial, not a neutral account of the events of 9/11 and their aftermath, which is why it will never be better than it is. It may well be satisfactory to American red-necks in its present state, but it most definitely is not to anyone not draped in red white and blue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry guy: Are you addressing me? If so, it wasn't a boiler plate. I was addressing specific points raised by 7mike5000. He claimed that we're not following NPOV, but in order for 9/11 CT to be covered in the article, he needs to name several prominent historians who adhere to this POV. He has not done so. He also claimed that a third of Americans believe in CT, but we don't write articles based on a POV's popularity among the general public. Not sure why any of that is confusing, but then again, you used an alleged MOS issue in a GAR even though MOS is not part of the GA criteria, so who knows? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh: read your own talk page. Now was he addressing the notability or the credibility of CTs? It isn't a difficult question. Think about it. Geometry guy 01:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

9/11 CTs are obviously notable, which is why we have a full article devoted to it: 9/11 conspiracy theories. But what does that have to do with this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking why notable facts about the 9/11 attacks should be excluded from this memorial article? Seriously? Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus Fatuorum: Just because a fringe theory is notable, doesn't mean it gets included in this article. We don't include Big Foot in the article on mammels or the Loch Ness Monster in the article on reptiles just because Big Foot and the Lock Ness Monster are notable topics in and of themselves. WP:NPOV is very clear on this matter. We only cover majority and significant minority viewpoints in an article. For everything else:

That ancillary article is 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm not sure what more we can possibly do while still following policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The notability of some conspiracy theories (or related issues) doesn't mean they "should" be mentioned, nor does it mean they "shouldn't" be mentioned. What we need to do is drop the sticks, and discuss how best to deal with the very prevalent issue of conspiracy theories in the article. Otherwise, this talk page will remain in interminable conflict, and Wikipedia will regularly be pilloried in the media. Geometry guy 02:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry guy: Ummmm...that goes exactly against what WP:NPOV states. Viewpoints held by an extremely small minority do not belong in Wikipedia except perhaps in some ancillary article. This has nothing to do with 'sticks', it has to do with following policy. If you disagree with WP:NPOV, then the proper venue for changing NPOV is the NPOV talk page. But please don't do it here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have stood up for WP:NPOV with my every single edit, and my comment does not contradict that. If you think brandishing sticks rather than reasoned discussion is the best way to achieve NPOV, please enlighten me about your viewpoint. Geometry guy 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry guy: You say that you've stood up for WP:NPOV, and I hope that's true. But can you please name some prominent historians who believe that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a fabulous illustration of the problems editors face in improving this article. You conflate and confuse pretty much every issue in just one post: I hope MONGO is proud of you. Go ahead: mix up notability and credibility, treat genuine concerns in the same way as you treat cranks, blur the distinction between conspiracy theories and fringe science; do whatever you need to do to justify the untenable position that this article completely ignores the existence of conspiracy theories or indeed any critical commentary of the standard history of events. Geometry guy 03:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry Guy: WP:NOTABILITY has nothing to do with this. We have no policy on credibility so I assume that you mean WP:WEIGHT. The governing policy regarding weight is WP:NPOV. In order to establish weight (i.e. a significant minority), you need to provide several prominent historians who adhere to 9/11 CT. And please don't argue that NPOV only applies to science, not history. NPOV applies to all articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention WP:NOTABILITY. I contribute under the assumption that editors of the English language Wikipedia are familiar with the English language, and not just wikispeak. I entirely agree that NPOV applies to all articles, but how NPOV is best achieved in any given article requires human intelligence and dialogue, otherwise editors would be out of a job (not a very well paid one, admittedly). Reducing everything to the nearest available guideline is a crutch. I also entirely agree that in order to include a particular 9/11 CT as an alternative history of events, several prominent historians who adhere to that theory would be required. However, in order to include 9/11 CTs as a cultural phenomenon, we need instead evidence of its notability as a phenomenon, and if we want the article to comment on more than the existence of the phenomenon, then it is not historians (adhering to CTs) we need to find, but sociologists (who have studied them). Geometry guy 18:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I already stated that I'm fine with a passing reference to CT. In fact, in one of the previous discussions, I wrote a rough draft of a paragraph on 9/11's impact on American culture, but nobody liked it, and no one proposed an alternate text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - maybe we are converging. Geometry guy 18:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories—regarding the approach taken in including that section in that article (placement, weight, tone, referencing, etc). GFHandel ♬  04:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge, when are you going to understand that your exagerated propagandas do not work here. Those who believe in conspiracy theorie are minority, but obviously not "extremely small minority", you know that better than us. so please stop exagerating like MONGO who exagerates in another way saying "zero engineering, zero investigative and zero reputable scientists" support any of the conspiracy theories. We have offered reliable sources more than what's needed, so let's talk about facts and stop exagerating or we get no where. And as Mike said, other articles contain conspiracy theories in the main article and this one shouldn't be any execption just because it might make some people sad.--lapsking (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide us with even ONE example of a 9/11 CT that has been published in a reputable peer reviewed engineering or scientific journal...there are some oldish reports in more sensationalistic tabloid magazines and some books written by those wishing to promote CT's and published by themselves or by second rate publishers mostly interested (as are the authors) in making a buck, and there are some self published websites...but there is not one CT regarding this event that has been published by a reliable source.MONGO 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The War on Error:Patriots question 9/11; : Architects, engineers, military and civilian pilots, medical professionals, major new organizations like the BBC, military officers and government officials including Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret), AND also Thomas Kean, the government appointed chairman of the government created ad hoc committe tasked with finding the "truth" of what happened who stated they were deliberately "obstructed" in their efforts to do so by segments of the government. I think this article as well as others have been commandeered by space aliens (or Rupert Murdoch) as part of the first phase in their efforts at global domination. This is why I wear a tin-foil hat when I log onto Wikipedia. 7mike5000 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mongo there are plenty of reliable sources that debunk the theories. Instead of saying the theories are wrong and so we the editors have decided not to include them, you lean on a source saying that. It shouldn't be hard and should be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying that 9/11 CT aren't WP:NOTABLE. We have a full article devoted to 9/11 CT: 9/11 Conspiracy theories and no one is calling for its deletion. The issue here is whether CT also warrant mention in this article. In order to do that, we need to address WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY. Can someone - anyone - anyone at all - do this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the article indeed shows that CTs are WP:NOTABLE, the content shows that they are a notable aspect of 9/11, and this article should touch base with them as part of good summary style. Yet it should also not give undue weight nor credibility to theories which have little such credibility. Part of the problem here is that there are two different reasons for mentioning CT related stuff, and a lack of clarity in discussions about which reason is being applied. The first reason is that some CTs contain legitimate criticism of the canonical history of 9/11. The second reason is that CTs are a significant cultural phenomenon. To justify mentioning CTs for the first reason requires different arguments than for the second. It certainly does require one to address issues such as WP:ONEWAY. My personal view is that the first reason would give undue weight: the second reason is more significant, and the article would better touch base with CTs there. Any legitimate criticism of the canonical history is better considered for reliability and due weight on a case-by-case basis, and integrated into the NPOV writing of the article. Geometry guy 18:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry guy: I think you hit the nail on the head. There are two different ways to include CT in the article. One is as a legitimate viewpoint which seems to be what 7mike5000 and others are arguing for. The other is a social phenomenon which seems to be what you and Moxy are arguing for. I'm obviously opposed to the first but would be willing to accept the second as a compromise. I agree with Tom and others, this would replace the external link at the bottom of the article. Geometry guy, can you please propose some text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that an intext link is better than an external one, as it provides readers with information and context. I cannot propose text myself, as I am not a reliable source. Moxy, on the other hand, has demonstrated a convincing familiarity with reliable sources about CTs, and could surely rise to such a challenge: provide an encyclopedic sentence on the notability of CTs as a social phenomenon, with several sources to match. Geometry guy 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

7mike5000 and Malleus have also good knowledge and reliable sources about the topic. lapsking (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to read a draft from Moxy of a sentence to go in the section Aftermath, subsection Cultural impact in Aude's proposed outline #2, with one in-text link to 9/11 conspiracy theories. It seems like AQFK proposed a paragraph on cultural impact a while ago. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is about the September 11 attacks. Attacks, not inside jobs. Not conspiracies. Not imaginary friends. Not pink elephants or sharks with lasers. Attacks. There are articles about conspiracy theories. There is no reason to pollute this article with nonsense or daftness. If daftness infected a certain subculture after the attacks, then possibly a mention of this phenomenon is reasonable but anything more is strictly against WP:FRINGE. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I read that for some, the CT's popularity were a coping mechanism to help them deal with the overwhelming nature of the event...the worst terrorist attack on a civilian population in peacetime...anyway, the issue is a cultural one, not based in reality or the facts.--MONGO 04:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That may indeed be so, but we should not let emotions color the treatment of the subject in the article.

I appreciate DHeyward's general point, but there are better arguments than ones involving pink elephants. The article is also not about Hamburg, NORAD, Guantanamo bay, knives, wind chimes, Islam, the PATRIOT act, trusses, turbans, Manhatten, video tapes, NATO, dust, Muslims, the FAA, Rudy Giuliani, luggage, American foreign policy, Mohammed, airplanes, Afghanistan, the Dow Jones, landfill, but the article makes reference to them all. Geometry guy 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no pink elephants...they don't exist. The fringe theories are no different...they are fantasies...there is no emotion in this simple fact.--MONGO 05:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither is there any logic. The fringe theories clearly do exist, and have had a considerable cultural impact that can't just be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 05:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way have they had this "considerable cultural impact that can't be ignored"? What impact? Are the conspiracy theories taught in schools instead of the facts? Are we seeing credible scientific and engineering journals coming forward with new, startling information due to some new evidence brought to light by defrocked college professors? Are people rising up against the U.S. Government and trying to overthrow it because of this supposed coverup?--MONGO 05:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me try and make this easy for you. Let's start with your statement that, like pink elephants, fringe theories don't exist. Is that really your position, that they don't exist? Malleus Fatuorum 06:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me make it even easier for you...they don't exist amongst reputable scientists engineers and investigators nor in the peer reviewed literature. A bunch of charlatans have published books full of misinformation and polluted the web with non peer reviewed sites offering nothing but lies that the intellectually challenged might find enlightening. You stated that the CT's have had, "considerable cultural impact that can't be ignored"...what culture, what impact? If you're able to say and cite reliably that some cultures have been impacted considerably, then that's one thing. Perhaps the 9/11 CT's impacted the recent Egyptian Revolution? Or revolution in Libya...perhaps some countries no longer teach anything but 9/11 CT's...or teach it as a viable alternative theory alongside the known evidence...--MONGO 06:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You got to be kidding your asking "what culture, what impact?" (have you read any of the links provided above?). This question leads me to believe you have never read a book about the September 11 attacks and your only knowledge about the topics is from this article. Competence!!! Moxy (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Yes, lets see what the cultural impacts are...what are they? Some charlatans wrotye some books to make a buck? IS THAT the cultural impact? You have no idea how broad my knowledge is regarding this issue and you should retract your personal attack about my competence.--MONGO 07:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How Conspiracy Theories Work .Moxy (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That still fails to explain this so called cultural impact...and doesn't address the issue of your questioning the competency of another editor.--MONGO 08:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The cultural impact is clear in many ways (see books below) Mainly the growing distrust in government has been greatly fulled by this stupid CT's.Moxy (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Leonard Victor Scott; Peter Darron Jackson (1 September 2004). Understanding intelligence in the twenty-first century: journeys in shadows. Taylor & Francis. pp. 99–105. ISBN 978-0-7146-8422-2.
• Martha F. Lee (2011). Conspiracy Rising: Conspiracy Thinking and American Public Life. ABC-CLIO. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-313-35013-9.
• Fathali M. Moghaddam (22 January 2010). The new global insecurity: how terrorism, environmental collapse, economic inequalities, and resource shortages are changing our world. ABC-CLIO. pp. 76–. ISBN 978-0-313-36507-2. Retrieved 26 November 2011.

You know, there are plenty of theories and ideas out there that have good and strong thinking behind them, focusing more on the people involved than the science of the events. I think when you have so many people that have closed their minds off completely to the possibility that the other side has a point you don't really create a good atmosphere for compromise. Maybe you should apply WP:AGF outside Wikipedia just as much as I presume you apply it here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have trouble doing that when the same question keeps being asked even after it has been answered with references many times... I was out of line - lets move forwardedMoxy (talk)

Apology accepted...you were out of line quite obviously, but for the record I have read the entire series of NIST reports as well as the FEMA report prior to that (which NIST superceded) the UN reports, 911 Commission Report, intelligence reviews and classified documents which you don't have access to and a couple of books including most recently "American Ground", Why don't those people whining about the lack of fringe stuff in this article create a new section below and write a paragraph about what the CT section should say and cite it...then we can discuss it and reach a consensus...Moxy, I think Tom Harrison above suggested you do this.--MONGO 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read "American Ground" and in that book they talk about "conspiracy" and how they got out of hand fast because of a simply wording mistake. William Langewiesche (11 September 2003). American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center. Macmillan. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-86547-675-2..Moxy (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A sub-section on conspiracy theories would over-weight the topic. A sub-section on cultural effects, containing one sentence or less with an in-text link to 9/11 conspiracy theories is what I have in mind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In the NIST final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1A), where out of a 75 page report, only 2 pages discussed Hypothetical Blast Scenarios....but that was due to the preposterousness and slanders that needed to be addressed...however, no conspiracy theories were discussed in the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST NCSTAR 1)...NIST documents employed dozens of non federal engineers and fire safety specialists for objectivity, including some of an international perspective...we have a 1% or less discussions in these two major documents...in all the engineering literature I have read, there is zero discussion except when someone has written deliberately to explain the implausibility of the 9/11 CT's...the only time CT's are mentioned in reliable sources is to debunk them or try to explain why people find them facinating...if your proposal is along those lines, then fine, otherwise this is not the article to diverge from the focus of what really happened...we have other articles that address these issues and if you or anyone else wants those articles to lend more credence to these fantasies, I suggest you go there and edit them. Othewrwise, start a new section below this one and WRITE what you think the CT discussion should be written in the article.--MONGO 16:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what part of government those classified documents are affiliated with. However, I see a bigger issue. Why do people seem to think the government is a reliable source that can just be taken for its word? I find this attitude bizarre. Compare the evidence before the Warren Commission to the evidence before the House Select Committee on Assassinations and you will see that the government was deliberately concealing important evidence that seriously challenged the official explanation for the Kennedy Assassination. Given that members of the 9-11 Commission have said plainly that they faced obstruction from various agencies and believed they were not told the whole story suggests that we really shouldn't just take what the 9-11 Commission said at face value, or what has been mentioned in any other publicly-available government report. I do not think the government is a reliable source in general, but I sure as hell don't think it is a reliable source on its own culpability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Government agencies and reports can be reliable and not reliable. It all depends on context. I don't think that anyone would seriously suggest that NASA isn't a reliable source for astronomy or that CDC isn't reliable for disease. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I was speaking generally, not referring to specifics. In this case, it is essentially the government investigating itself. When you have the fox investigate who broke into the hen house he will almost always conclude that the dog did it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

They didn't investigate themselves, they investigated Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 Commission Report has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In fact, it's probably the most cited work on this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

They were investigating themselves. That was the whole point of the 9-11 Commission. It was about finding out what the government did wrong. Plenty of agencies were already investigating al-Qaeda. Your misguided praise of the 9-11 Commission aside, internal investigations are usually never the most reliable sources on an issue. Keep in mind also, that most of the time we don't take whatever a prosecutor says about a suspect as being gospel truth. When you get right down to it 9-11 is ultimately a criminal case and statements from the government concerning the suspects should be taken with as much a grain of salt as statements from a district attorney concerning the suspect in a high-profile murder case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Everytime we're going to reach a conclusion, MONGO takes the discussion to the very starting point and asks the very same repetitive boring question, even though it has been answered with many references many times.--lapsking (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. And it's getting very, very tedious. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much talkin', not enough proposin'

It looks like several of us favor (or are at least open to) a sub-section on cultural effects, containing one sentence or less with an in-text link to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but so far, no one has made a concrete proposal. Look, we can talk about this until we're blue in the face, but until someone comes up with something concrete, we're just spinning our wheels. Can someone please propose some text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not sufficiently familiar with the sources to propose text in detail, but I can suggest an outline/structure to get the ball rolling. So that others can better understand my line of thought, I draw attention the lead of Holocaust denial, which editors may know I regard as an exemplar of how to handle something of this sort. It is stable, neutral and informative, but doesn't mince words. I also would note that no sentence is going to change the minds of a hardened conspiracy theorist, nor should it preach to the converted. For maximal usefulness and effectiveness, the audience to have in mind is a reader who has heard about some conspiracy theory or other and wonders if there might be something in it. We don't want to turn off such a reader by telling them that they are an idiot, but we want their visit to WP to provide them the information they need to come to a, how shall I put it, more enlightened view of them? :)

I think the sentence should have two clauses, probably separated by a semicolon for maximal neutrality: the first clause should describe the phonomenon of conspiracy theories in the editorial neutral voice. This is tricky to do in a brief fashion as there is such a wide range of CTs, and we don't want to give a list; we need to be guided by sources to draw out any common themes, but the clause could simply be something like "Some individuals and groups have expressed skepticism that Al Qaeda could have carried out the September 11 attacks unaided, in the manner described by mainstream historians". That's a bit weasel-like at the moment, which is why we need sources. It also isn't clear where to put the in-text link.

The second clause then delivers the meta information about notability and credibility, and could be much more pointed, provided this is reflected in the sources: for instance it could make a contrast between the notability and credibility. Then, just like "Holocaust denial" does, we end with the label "conspiracy theory". For instance a rough second clause could take the form "despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers and historians, they have become cultural phenomena (with adherents forming Y% of group Z according to poll X) which are studied by historians and sociologists as examples of conspiracy theories".

That's the rough shape I would go for. It can be surely be tightened up a lot, but we need sources to help us do that. Geometry guy 19:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all taking place against the backdrop of a government administration which didn't want investigation; which made extensive efforts to hinder investigation; and which exploited the event to implement its own political objectives. This is extensively documented by reliable sources; references and links are readily available. In my opinion, it's disingenuous to take an approach which equates to "don't look there; nothing credible to see", when we know that there is plenty of reason to be critical of the story as given by the government. The article shouldn't imply that the "inside job" theory is the only form of criticism directed toward the matter, when there is much which is not theoretical. Wildbear (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy's above works for me as an outline. The wording will no doubt require much adjustment to accurately reflect the sources and reach consensus. It's important that the sentence not stand alone, but appear in context in a paragraph on cultural effects. My understanding is we're aiming for a paragraph on social/cultural effects, not 911 in popular culture. AQFK drafted something; don't know if that reflects his current thinking. The sentence must also not be used as a link platform for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for Truth and Justice, controlled demolition, Alex Jones, Polls that prove we aren't nuts, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the context here is social/cultural effects. Specific issues, such as government resistance to investigation, should be considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis, and included, if agreed, in their own context with appropriate balance and weight. That's not what we are discussing in this thread, though.

I also agree that an encyclopedia should never take an approach equating to "don't look there, nothing credible to see", but instead should say "do look there, come away more informed and make up your own mind". My outline needs refinement in detail, but the principles on which it is based are important. "Show, don't tell", provide information and "let the reader decide", for example. The text should also not be argumentative: we strive for accuracy and aim to state information in a way that no one can seriously argue with, nor consider as "methinks thou dost protest too much". This is also important for stability and maintenance. Geometry guy 21:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The better article to reference is the The Holocaust and how it handles Holocaust denial as a fringe theory and cuoltural phenomenon. The September 11 attacks is the historical article similar to the The Holocaust while the conspiracy theories are similar to the holocaust denial. No doubt that the conspiracy theories articles should be worded with a similar lede to holocaust denial. But this article should have a brief in passing mention only in a cultural impact section. It should also mention any articles that refute the nonsense just as the Holocaust article does. --DHeyward (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks to Geometry Guy for stepping up to the plate and giving us a proposal. I'll take a closer look at the proposed text when I get a chance, but I want to make one quick point. I'd be cautious about which polls we mention. They are sometimes commissioned by 9/11 conspiracy groups and are sometimes worded in a leading fashion to make it appear that CT are popular than they really are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Whats the poll amongst reputable engineers, experts on controlled demolition, fire investigators and others that have expertise in intelligence and evidence gathering...we never see a poll like that one...all we see is what a random pool (and sometimes not even random, but carefully chosen to get the hoped for results) of people that may have a predetermined bias, not be well enough informed or simply find the CT's more interesting than the relatively bland truth.--MONGO 05:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to be completely clear about "Holocaust denial". I am giving it as as exemplar, not because I think it is the closest analogous article to this one, but because I believe the lead does an excellent job. In summary style, the lead of a spin-out article should be a good basis for its treatment in the parent article.

Regarding polls, I don't have a strong view on whether we mention one or not. We just need reliably sourced and editorially neutral ways to convey the facts that conspiracy theories exist, are believed by some, refuted and dismissed by experts, and written about and studied by others. Geometry guy 13:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It still stands that the article on The Holocaust is very similiar to the article on September 11 attacks and how the Holocaust article deals with a fringe theory. Everyone knows that there are holocaust deniers. In fact, Iran develops its foreign policy around it. However, Holocaust denial as a cultural impact has very little to do with the historical event known as the Holocaust. As such, it's barely mentioned in the article and receives the same amount of space as a page critical of holcaust denial. The point being that the deniers/CTers should receive very little attention in the article itself because they add little to the actual historical record. A "See Also" reference is generous. --DHeyward (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You can make that argument if you like, but I think you'll have trouble getting editors to agree on how similar/analogous it is and/or whether or not there are better analogues (JFK for example). I don't think the "analogues" route will help us reach consensus, and so I have tried to be clear that this is not my aim. I'd also rather think about the generosity and attentiveness of the article to the reader. WP should be neither a platform for promoting an agenda, nor undermining or debunking one. It is instead all about informing the reader. My view in this case is very simple: an in text link is preferable to a "see also" reference here because it provides the reader with context. That's good for many reasons: for instance, it helps the reader to decide whether to click through and may thus even save them some time. Geometry guy 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

From the readers point of view, it does them a grave disservice to have the after the fact conspiracy theories mar the historical account that the article is covering. --DHeyward (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy...then don't misuse the article as a platform for spreading nonsense. I have read dozens of physical anthropology books and nary a one of them discusses Bigfoot...even though there are some minor tidbids of evidence to support the extremely unlikely/virtually impossible existence of said creature, that evidence is so meager none of these entire books even mention it...because it is pretty much preposterous...just as the CT's in this case are. Constantly arguing for inclusion of CT's in this article makes you and anyone else doing it have all the appearances of POV pushers.--MONGO 03:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Man this on-sided views are hard to overcome. Keep speaking about POVs but exclusion is the worst POV there is (we call it censorship) - how is advocating omission not a stringent POV when its clear there has been an signification influence regardless if you like it or not?. So in your opinion this conspiracy theories have had no affect on history at all. I would personal say the exact opposite in this case - President George W. Bush speech about this conspiracy theories is historical and shows how significant there influence was on society around the world? So mush so that the "President of the United States" had to "personally" address the situation to the United Nations. How is this not relevant to the overall story.

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror." -- GW Bush speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001

Things like this above sure sounds like something our readers would find interesting and relevant to this overall article.Moxy (talk)

Moxy: I'm willing to support a limited reference to 9/11 CT as a compromise but DHeyward and Mongo are making some compelling arguments. You say that their objections are "hard to overcome". IMHO, they are actually pretty easy to overcome. All you have to do is:

• Provide some sources about 9/11 which also cover CT in a serious and prominent manner per WP:ONEWAY.

And/Or:

• Provide some sources written by prominent and respected historians who adhere to 9/11 CT per WP:NPOV.

Despite months of requests, neither has ever been fullfilled.

As for your second point, how many speeches does a President give over the course of an 8 year presidency? Is it just one speech? Or hundreds of speeches? Or thousands? Do 2-3 sentences of a single speech constitute anything significant in context of all the other speeches Bush gave over his 8 year presidency? I think not.

That said, I still support a limited reference to 9/11 CT as a compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Despite months of requests, neither has ever been fullfilled"? this is the circular argument that gets us no were - Sourced have been provide above and at the GA review. Thus far no objects to the sourced have been presented unless its a case that not all see google book pages so cant comment? What should be asked is - regardless of who said what - is what is the impact of the retarded CTs on the overall story. Bush's speech I believe is relevant to the argument of some inclusion because it proves the point it is mentioned in a small way even at the heights levels of government. I keep hearing well its only a sentence or two or its not covered extensively or by the right people. What many seem to be missing is that it is covered as you all keep saying in its small amount. So why is it not covered here in the same small way with the same resolve? A for WP:ONEWAY ..ok lets not inject the CT ideas into the article. WP:NPOV.. ok lets mention them in there context not inserts there views.. those were easy to over come. Lets make it very simple...."Although reject by mainstream academic communities, 9 11 conspiracy theories that arouse soon after the attacks have been prevalent in all media forms. (5 refs from above here] Simple to the point while giving our readers context on the link there about to click on.Moxy (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point about the context of CT within the overall historical fact of the September 11 attacks. They are irrelevant to the historical event. Just as Holocaust denial is irrelevant to the actual Holocaust. The fact that it evolved after the fact is not pertinent to the event itself. Yes, Bush addressed the anti-semitic aspects of Israeli involvement CT (and it makes the analogy of Holocaust/holocaust denial even more pertinent), but it doesn't change the historical record. No credible source has even considered CT as a possible explanation. This is the fundamental difference between this article and the assassination articles where probes into possible conspirators were very prevalent. In fact, this article follows the credible "conspiracy theory" that there were 19 hijackers that trained together with funding from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That "conspiracy theory" is credible and is covered in depth. No other conspiracy theory has proved credible or worth mentioning given NPOV, One Way or Undue weight. A link in a "see also" section regarding cultural impact is a possibility but anything more gives it credence beyond its actual validity. --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan on saying anyhting else after this because it's not worth getting blocked or banned over for which i have already been warned by someone named "Nuclear Warfare". Just to be redundant which is par for the course :Albert Stubblebine is a retired Major General and former head of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command which is part of the National Security Agency he also holds an advanced degree in chemical engineering and is an expert in photographic analysis. He is not a crank, a wack or a fringe theorist. He has stated emphatically that the official version of events doesn't wash with the evidence. Bill Manning served as editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, a respected magazine for the trade for 15 years, he is still currently employed in the field as editor-in-chief of Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment magazine. Making crank allegations would not be in his best interest for employment, yet he stated right off the bat that the investigation was comprimised, $ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION . These are just two many reputable professionals with the credentials to back themselves up.

Maybe it's just me but how is it that people who use pseudonyms with no veifiable credentials feel they have more knowledge and get to dictate what appears in the first place in the search engine on the subject? How is that an individual who calls himself MONGO from Montana "a genuine American redneck" gets to control the page, he is self-appointed expert over formatting, images, content etc., yet if you try and contribute those who don't tow the line get treated to rude, obnoxious and impertinent comments like "idiotic notions" etc. If you respond in kind or if you try levity you get threatened with a block I have been all over Montana, it's a beautiful state, I noticed you can't see Lower Manhattan from there, I also noticed that there is not much to do there but they do have a lot of cattle and also sheep. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Manning's complaint is part of a longstanding concern on the part of fire services about the behavior of lightweight floor trusses and their performance in fire scenarios. This has nothing whatever to do with conspiracy theories: it has to do with the fact that such structures rapidly destabilize in fires, since their surface is extensive relative to their mass. They were popular in the 1970s (i.e., the WTC) and are not used very much anymore, but are of obvious concern for those who have to fight fires in such buildings, whether they're low or high-rise. There have been many serious concerns raised in hindsight concerning appropriate choices of structure, fireproofing and egress arrangements in tall buildings following 9/11; lightweight floor trusses have been a sore point from a time before 9/11 and Manning's point arises from a legitimate pre-existing concern. There is no connection to conspiracies or controlled demolition. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as editors continue to blur distinctions, obfuscate, go round in circles and personalize issues, there will be no progress. Moxy has made an alternative proposal to mine, which could be copyedited down to "Although rejected by mainstream scholarship, 9/11 conspiracy theories that arose soon after the attacks have been prevalent in the media". It has the merit of being inherently shorter than my approach, but also provides less information. What do editors prefer? Geometry guy 11:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that conspiracy theories have not been considered as a possible explanation. While controlled demolition has not been covered much, theories about foreign involvement of U.S. allies have been fairly prominent, such as those stemming from Sibel Edmond's accusations about corruption in various executive departments, intelligence agencies, and federal law enforcement. See the following:

So, it is incorrect to say conspiracy theories have not been seriously considered. Also, I should say the allegations of Israeli involvement have a unique significance to the story as this was the reaction of some in the Arab and Muslim community as soon as the attacks were blamed on al-Qaeda. See the following: --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording

It's entirely reasonable to say the article is about the attacks, and the conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the attacks themselves. They are social/psychological/political (briefly 'cultural') phenomena. 9/11 conspiracy theories is linked at all only because a consensus wanted a link in See also. As an alternative to that see-also link, I don't oppose mentioning them in a paragraph about cultural effects; but that means we write a paragraph about cultrual effects, not gin up a way to mention conspiracy theories in the article. It's a worrying artifact of that process that we seem to be writing that paragraph inside out, starting with a sentence on conspiracy theories and as an afterthought dashing off a paragraph to put it in. For now, here's something based on AQFK's mentioned above, including something like Geometry guy's and Moxy's proposals:

The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. Nearly every area of [[List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks|popular culture]] has been affected the attacks and reveals how these events influenced ordinary people. Immediate responses to 9/11 included nesting, higher church attendence, and increased expressions of patriotism such as the flying of flags. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play-lists, and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks. Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in [[List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks|books, films, popular songs, and television]]. Already running shows such as ''The West Wing'' and ''24'', as well as programs developed after 9/11 such as ''Rescue Me'' and ''Lost'' reflect [[post-9/11]] cultural concerns. [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

Of course, Citation needed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest draft text (AQFK, G'guy. MoxyTom):

• Support...and be BOLD and add it all in...references for this should be easy to locate...even 4-5 references just for that CT mention should be easy to add.MONGO 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion under any circumstance violates NPOV and ONEWAY. This article should cover the attacks themselves, not the ridiculous conspiracy theories, and no independent reliable source has connected the two topics in a serious and credible way. Per ONEWAY, the bizarro conspiracy theories should not be mentioned in this article - at all. If one wants to write an Aftermath of September 11 attacks article, a short sentence or two may be valid... But not here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• continue to support after update. As all can see 5 out of the 7 section here is about the aftermath of the event despite assertion to the contrary.Moxy (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Adding something along the lines Tom has suggested would be a gigantic step forwards. And as Moxy points out above in reply to Toa's objection, the bulk of the article isn't actually about the events of the day anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It doesn't matter, that can be solved by a rewrite. That red herring really doesn't work when you look at NPOV and ONEWAY rather than try and distract from it - ONEWAY clearly prohibits even the mere mention of CTs in this article. Toa Nidhiki05 16:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, but not in mine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. I don't appreciate being called a "nut". You and MONGO have consistently tried to claim that those arguing for the inclusion of a mention of conspiracy theories must automatically believe them, which is a gross distortion of what's been said. I very much doubt that anyone commenting here gives conspiracy theories much, if any, credence, but we're writing for our readers, not putting forwards only our own pov. Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus...I didn't see your name in the discussion.MONGO 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not like you haven't ever said anything similar, Malleus? Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be a step in the right direction if you could see your way to keeping to the issue at hand rather than indulging your distaste for those commenting. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who seems to drag any discussion into some way to fluff your ego, not us. --Tarage (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And there you go again, just can't keep your big mouth shut. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Implying you ever could. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with some enthusiasm. This is the way forward. In particular, I like the phrasing of the last sentence. Thanks Tom for taking this on. Antandrus (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reword as there are lots of issues I can see with how it is written. As for the last sentence on the conspiracy theories I would propose wording more like this:
  
  

  While having negligible support within the scientific community, conspiracy theories relating to the attacks have been adopted by a significant minority of the general population as well as celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Jesse Ventura.

  That would be better wording in my opinion and somewhat more useful. If you are wary about the term significant minority I would suggest you look at the article on 9-11 polls. Right now I do not have a good idea of how to rewrite the rest, but I think with some improvement Tom's suggestion would be good to put in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks.MONGO 18:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your objection?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally not a fan of inserting any names.Moxy (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And neither am I. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Names imply support. The entire 'reword' is designed to imply support from academia, the general population, and celebrities. No thanks, this is even worse than the first one. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I really wishing we get more history editors involed in this talk.Moxy (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Tom's version of that sentence also includes the term "negligible support" with regards to academia so the accusation that said wording was "designed" by me to do anything is empty. As for implying support, there are in fact people who support these theories you know. That isn't just made up. Mentioning Charlie Sheen and Jesse Ventura isn't liable to draw a lot of positive attention either, that insertion was more because I think it makes the sentence more relevant to the question of cultural impact as these are two well-known celebrities who have garnered a lot of attention for the conspiracy theories in popular culture.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

...And I opposed that one as well. Listing names only serves to give the false impression of support - it serves no other purpose. The fact that people support them is not important in the least - people support moon landing conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, and Paul McCartney death theories too. Fact is, some people are bound support pretty much anything - but whether or not Jessie Ventura supports them is irrelevant to this article, as are the CTs. We don't list names of people that aren't denialists about 9/11 on this page, we shouldn't do it with the denialists either. Toa Nidhiki05 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about this?:

Despite negligible support within the academic community, conspiracy theories relating to the attacks have been adopted by a small but significant minority of the general population, including several celebrities.

--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the second one, it still violates ONEWAY and NPOV. It is still designed to give the false impression of support for the denialists. Toa Nidhiki05 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Except it does have supporters. There is no false impression of anything, because it is technically true that there are people who support them. Tom's wording says the theories became "social phenomena" and that wording is not only bizarre, but actually has a somewhat misleading if not prejudicial nature to it. The words "social phenomena" make me think of trifling things like pop-culture icons, internet memes, and toy fads.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning advocates is unhelpful and pointless here, but I'm glad there is agreement on the word "negligible", which expresses "essentially zero" without saying "literally zero". Geometry guy 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I support this proposal in the spirit of compromise, but it's on the condition that this isn't be abused to used as a platform for advocacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If it was ever used as a platform for advocacy then I'd be manning the barricades right alongside you; this is about comprehensiveness as far as I'm concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not worried about you Malleus, it's all the drive-by's who might try to do that. Maybe we can add a hidden comment saying something like, "STOP. Please do not expand or remove 9/11 conspiracy theories from the article. The verbiage being used by our article was arrived at after months of discussion and consensus-building. If you think something should be changed, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That works for me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

        I don't think drive-by's stand a snowball's chance to influence the article's overall position, but we should do what we can to maximize stability and make maintenance as straightforward as possible. Geometry guy 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, with thanks to Tom for his efforts. I've already explained why WP:ONEWAY arguments potentially confuse issues (we are mentioning the cultural phenomenon of CTs here, not a particular CT as an alternative fringe account of events) and I believe several editors have understood what I have been trying to say, so I won't repeat myself in detail. Even if my motives are still misunderstood by some (I push and have always pushed for Wikipedia's neutral point of view, because I think it is one of the project's most magnificent principles), I regard it is valuable that the article has editors who will argue robustly against potential future abuses.

  I agree with Tom and others that it is not ideal that we need to clear this hurdle before dealing with other improvements, and the accompanying paragraph will almost certainly require some revision, so that it is solidly encyclopedic content with maximum stability, and does not become a "9/11 in popular culture" magnet (Tom cautioned against this in a previous post, and I agree). However, it is necessary to put some text in place, because the whole CT issue has become a barrier to collegial discussion about improving the article to GA and beyond. Support for crossing this hurdle and moving on to the next challenge is very much to be welcomed and I welcome it. Geometry guy 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'd change the following sentence:

Nearly every area of popular culture has been affected the attacks and reveals how these events influenced ordinary people.

Instead of "popular culture", say "American culture" or just plain "culture". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also favor reworking that, perhaps more substantially (modulo sourcing) e.g., "The wide range of cultural effects/impacts of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people". Geometry guy 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. I also have no idea what "nesting" refers to, or why it is significant, but that is likely ignorance on my part.

@Geometry Guy:

• Yes, I like your wording.
• It's poor wording on my part. Nesting refers to a trend that emphasized home life and time spent with family after the attacks. BTW, most of that paragraph is sourced to September 11 in popular culture: a guide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree we should replace "popular culture" with something that better expresses the point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - could also change "popular culture" to "life in the United States" (or "life in the western world" if there is references for that). Absolutely oppose this if it in any ways turns into a springboard for what The Devil's Advocate has proposed. This is not an opening to expand CT or pop culture references. There are other articles for that. --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to my proposed rewording of Tom's suggestion or the comment I made above this subsection responding to your claims about conspiracy theories not being considered by credible sources?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. --DHeyward (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, I asked you about two separate things so that answer isn't really clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional Support so long that this is the final addition. We had this same talk when we included the link, and it already feels like we're inching back towards undue weight territory. I want something substantial in writing that pushing anything more than this is POV pushing and will not be humored. --Tarage (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say its a step forward as per the good article reassessment that for some odd reason was ongoing during the last "See also" link talk. Moxy (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of barring discussion about changes to make the article more comprehensive on information relevant to the subject. My opinion is that a paragraph in the aftermath section a la the OKC Bombing article is the best way to deal with this aspect of the subject. Suggesting that seeking to apply a similar change to this article should automatically be derided as POV-pushing and given the silent treatment is not appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree, but these are the terms of my conditional support. I am sick and tired of this talkpage being a battlefield for single purpose accounts to try to promote more inclusion of conspiracy theories. If we implement this change, I want a line drawn in the sand for them. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And who are these SPAs of whom you speak? Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The talk page archives are filled with them, as is the page listing the users topic banned under the discretionary sanctions as well. Next time do your own research. --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Updated proposal I've updated the proposal to include the hidden comment, Geometry Guy's rewording of the second sentence, and I replaced "nesting" with "increased focus on home life and time spent with family". Here's how the proposal currently stands:

The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of [[List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks|cultural effects of the attacks]] reveal how they influenced ordinary people. Immediate responses to 9/11 included increased focus on home life and time spent with family, higher church attendence, and increased expressions of patriotism such as the flying of flags. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play-lists, and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks. Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in [[List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks|books, films, popular songs, and television]]. Already running shows such as ''The West Wing'' and ''24'', as well as programs developed after 9/11 such as ''Rescue Me'' and ''Lost'' reflect [[post-9/11]] cultural concerns. <!-- "STOP. Before expanding or removing 9/11 conspiracy theories, please note that the verbiage being used was arrived at after months of discussion and consensus-building. If you think something should be changed, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you." --> [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

Most of this can be sourced to September 11 in popular culture: a guide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• continue to support after update - again - thanks for directing us in the right wayMoxy (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• New proposal I came up with a somewhat different rewording that I think generally improves the readability and style of the paragraph:

The 9/11 attacks had a significant effect on society and culture. Its [[List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks|impact on culture]] extended to most aspects of life. Immediate responses to 9/11 included a greater focus on home life and time spent with family, higher church attendance, and increased expressions of patriotism such as the flying of flags. The radio industry responded by removing certain songs from play-lists. Later, the attacks became plot points or backdrops in [[List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks|books, films, popular songs, and television]]. Already running shows such as ''The West Wing'' and ''24'', as well as programs developed after 9/11 such as ''Rescue Me'' and ''Lost'' reflect [[post-9/11]] cultural concerns. <!-- "STOP. Before expanding or removing 9/11 conspiracy theories, please note that the verbiage being used was arrived at after months of discussion and consensus-building. If you think something should be changed, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Thank you." --> [[9/11 conspiracy theories|Conspiracy theories about the attacks]] emerged almost immediately, despite negligible support for such views within the mainstream academic community.

One change in my proposal is the removal of the bit about recording artists, since the next sentence mentions "popular songs" alongside books and films.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing "and recording artists wrote songs about the attacks." and "popular songs". That might not be a bad idea. Songs and music seem to be crap-magnets. But I don't think it's a good idea to come up with a competing wording. That might have the effect of splitting people's support with neither one gaining consensus. I'd rather you just suggest each change individually and then we can modify Tom's proposal accordingly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Where popular songs is inserted it would not really create an issue (listing a bunch of different songs in the middle of a list would annoy enough people that it would never be able to pass), but the part about recording artists was redundant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would concur and support removing the clause "recording artists wrote songs about the attacks", as a potential pop culture magnet. Geometry guy 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry Guy: What about "popular songs", too? I would remove that as well. @Everyone: Does any one else want to weigh in on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a particular reason to exclude songs from a list, but we could rephrase "books, films, popular songs, and television". At the moment it uses the generic singular only for "television" and plural count nouns for the rest, which suggests a copyedit in any case. How about "film, television, music and literature"? Geometry guy 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Geometry Guy: "film, television, music and literature" is fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay - we could be ready to make these two tweaks to the draft above (with a couple of diffs to this thread, so anyone concerned by the change is fully informed). Such a change barely impinges on most of the discussion in this section. Geometry guy 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a chronological problem with "Conspiracy theories about the attacks emerged almost immediately, despite negligible support for such views within the mainstream academic community". It's not correct to tie the emergence of such theories with the lack of academic support. So how about something like "Conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks emerged almost immediately, but have received negligible support within the mainstream academic community."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2011

I think we're better with what's just above by AQFK: [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That works as well, but the version I was responding to doesn't. There are already too many versions of this proposal to keep track: we need to have one, and work on refining that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. Having multiple proposals is confusing things. @Devil's Advocate: Can you please strike thru your proposal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not something I am going to do. We are, to use what Malleus said, refining an initial draft proposal. Part of that means putting out alternative wording for the overall passage in order to drive discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you just discuss each change like everyone else? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I had several ideas and proposing them all as individual changes just does not seem as effective as proposing them as part of a whole.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I should point out one of my issues with your wording there is that the use of the word "expert" and the singling-out of specific academic professions might lead readers to think there is broader support among academia than there is in reality. Not all academics are considered experts and there are plenty of other fields of academic study relevant to the case, but the negligible level of support does not change much, if at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel somewhat responsible for the list of professions. How about something like "negligible support for such views among experts and/or within mainstream scholarship"? Geometry guy 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "despite negligible evidence for such views" cited to one of the many reliable sources? Otherwise we might do best to go with what we have and let the normal process of editing refine it later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Going with "despite negligible evidence for such views" sounds good to me. This roundabout needs to be stopped. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That works for me too: in terms of editorial input, less may be more here. However, I also agree with Tom that the normal editing process can take care of small refinements in the longer term. That's the best way to ensure minor disagreements don't spin us off track on improving the article. Geometry guy 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"despite negligible evidence for such views" sounds like there is some evidence for CT. What evidence is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "lack of evidence" or something would be more accurate; "negligible" was held over from the other wording. The current proposed text is up above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Except, arguably there is evidence and that is part of the problem. Talking about "negligible evidence" is going to cause a whole dispute over what counts as evidence and whether that evidence is "negligible" or not. People are going to insist on there being eyewitness evidence, video evidence, and even circumstantial evidence supporting the conspiracy theories. Maybe editors not wanting to open the article up even more to conspiracies will insist on only covering physical evidence, but there are going to be arguments about that as well with talk about nano-thermite chips some guys supposedly found perhaps topping it by crying how NIST did not base its decision on physical evidence. Not to mention all sorts of people are going to come in here having the same thought you just did and insist on changing "negligible" to "no" to protect us from the "wackos" further aggravating the situation as many conspiracists will feel more like they need to include their evidence in the article to counter the claims that there isn't any. People who reluctantly supported the inclusion may well begin changing their minds as a result of the consequent edit wars (lots of "I told you so" or "this is what I was afraid of" remarks) and, well, the article will be right back where it started or worse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The word "negligible" is appropriate when referring to support by scholars and experts, but opens up a can of worms in connection with evidence. On reflection, I prefer that we focus on support, as in the current text: what is believed is easier to factualize (as we must) than what is "true", and WP should be pointing readers to what the most reliable expert sources believe. Geometry guy 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence --->support change is a good move. Acroterion (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This one issue, and the attitude behind it, has been a show stopper. Hopefully once this addition has been made attention can be turned to the serious issue of the article's overall structure. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be worse in so many ways. I already gave a different proposed wording above. My proposal above used "despite negligible support for such views within the mainstream academic community" in place of what you proposed. I used "academic" because I felt that did the best job of covering all the various professions as opposed to a term like "scholar" that isn't necessarily seen as applying to engineers and the like.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. What's worse is this endless jawing, get something into the main space. It can be tweaked there while the article is hopefully being improved from a memorial to a dispassionate account of the events of that day: the background, the timeline, and the aftermath. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to support that as a temporary matter so long as the conspiracy sentence uses the wording in the version as of this comment (I may not be fond of it but it is still better than what Tom just suggested), or wording similar to what I suggested.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest to you both that patience is a virtue? We should give editors time to respond to the proposed change in any case. One step at a time. Geometry guy 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I created a diff with my Sandbox to show what I changed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest keeping track of the latest draft at the top, just after Tom's original. It is more important to agree on a text in rough outline than to argue over the details. However, if during the course of discussion, there appears to be some broad support for a minor change, we can update the latest draft so that it best reflects current thinking and consensus. Geometry guy 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support the present draft. Easily sourced and in due proportion. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• FYI For what it's worth we will be without The Devil's Advocate for the next 30 days. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support the current draft. Reasonable and can sourced per policy. I hope we do not find this slope slippery. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with one small note -- the television show 24 did not start until November of 2001; its premiere was actually delayed (possibly reshot, I forget) because the plotline had similarities. I'm not saying all that should be mentioned, but I'm just throwing in that referring to 24 as "already running" is not 100% accurate.

Also, if we're talking "cultural impact", maybe it might be worth some sort of note about how there were a few weeks where people were asking "Is comedy dead?" and then shows like Letterman, then The Daily Show, then SNL, all came back and started forging a new path. (That's obviously not encyclopedic language, just an idea, but I don't mean to divert the vote, so I'm sorry if this isn't the way to bring it up.)

ThatGuamGuy (talk)ThatGuamGuy

@ThatGuamGuy: Are you sure? Our article on 24 lists November 6, 2001 as the date the first episode aired: 24 (season 1)#Episodes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose sentence on CT in the proposal above. Available source do not allow us to conclude that the information that (some) conspiracy theories emerged almost immediately would be the single most important characteristics of them. Rather, overviews of CTs highlight that they have evolved over time. I would prefer something closer to the first version, simply giving the information that 9/11 CTs have become a cultural phenomenon. In addition, the text should mention that 9/11 CTs are supported by many people internationally, and by a significant minority in the U.S. The latter aspect has been the focus of a number of articles about CTs (TIME magazine etc.). We should add the statement about the general consensus in the scientific community along the line proposed by Geometry guy.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  Just for clarity, the CT sentence in the current proposed text ("latest version" at the top of this thread) is "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views among expert scientists, engineers, and historians." Geometry guy 01:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support this well-written paragraph though with a couple of minor points. First ThatGuamGuy makes a good point that 24 was not "already running". Second, the List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks seems to be as much or more about arts and entertainment that avoided any reference to the attacks, however indirect, than about arts and entertainment that used them as a plot point or a backdrop. Maybe the answer is simply to remove the link, or maybe there's a better solution. I think these should really be fixed. One more suggestion is that the third sentence could begin "Within the United States", though this is just a suggestion, and if it's distracting from achieving consensus, please ignore it.--Rsm77 (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• continue to support after update - This is an overview article that should cover (in due weight) ever aspect of the topic that has been published over and over. A simple mention that CT's are a "social phenomena" is in the right context without going into details about who said what, were and why. Much better then a "See also" link that stands out like a sore thumb. Moxy (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment...I don't think naming particular shows on the tele is really helpful. It just comes off as advertising. Even the limited movies made about the event should probably be best left out.--MONGO 01:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Seems like a reasonable enough suggestion. Also, it my preempt any potential content disputes over which TV shows get mentioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)