Talk:September 11 attacks

Responses to GA review

@Khazar2: The problem isn't with the article; the problem is with the GA/FA review process. According to WP:NPOV, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be presented. Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints should be excluded or delegated to some ancillary article (if they are notable). So, the article is correct and the RfC was correct. The problem is with the GA/FA review process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the conspiracy theories are not worth discussing as an actual explanation of the events. I do think, though, that they should get a paragraph or two here as a widely covered and significant social phenomenon, while noting carefully that these are debunked by practically every expert.

But as I said, this isn't really a problem one GA reviewer can solve at this point, regardless of my views. Since there's a previous consensus from GA reviewers, I'm going to defer to it; in any case, the nominator's refusal to participate meant this was never going to get off the ground.

If you want to overturn the GAR, my suggestion would be to call an RfC on the topic, explicitly asking about how the GA criteria apply here; then ping those who participated in that GAR as well as posting at relevant WikiProjects and WT:GAN. That way, it won't be possible for another GAN/GAR to disregard previous RfCs as "local consensus". Alternatively, you might start a conversation at WT:GAN about how this stalemate can be addressed; perhaps a second GAR could be opened directly, I'm not sure how that works. The bottom line, though, is that while consensus can change, we should at least get together some editors to make sure it has changed. Hope this helps, and thanks for your work on what I know is a frustrating article. It's terrific quality in almost all respects, and I hope a way can be found to resolve this impasse so it can get the green blob it deserves. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article should be the focus...the biggest problem this aticle has is that is goes off in too many directions.--MONGO 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel like you and AFQK are expending a lot of energy arguing with somebody who basically agrees with you. I've read many articles on the subject as well as books like Looming Tower and personally agree that the conspiracy/alternate theories are ludicrous. In Wikipedia terms, I haven't seen any sources significant enough to suggest to me that a significant minority of mainstream thinkers consider any alternative theory legitimate. I just think they're worth giving a paragraph to in the way that hate crimes, expansion of government surveillance, economic changes, and other subsequent social consequences are. To quote the BBC on how big these theories became:./

"As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.

9/11 is the conspiracy theory of the internet age.

Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million.

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

In the UK a survey by the BBC's The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a "wider conspiracy that included the American government"."[2]

Or an example from the NYT:

"This is not a stereotype, but a fact of Middle Eastern cultures – and a fact that Western nations must reckon with. Conspiracy theories of this type are ubiquitous in the region; 75 percent of Egyptian Muslims do not believe Arabs were behind 9/11, with many faulting the U.S. government or Jews instead."[3]

I think the article's incomplete without noting that an enormous swath of people blame the US, Israel, etc. for the attacks. We don't have to endorse those views to note that they are widely held and socially significant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: Believe it or not, we're very familiar with issue. While 9/11 Conspiracy theories (CTs) are independently notable, there is virtually no coverage of them in relation to 9/11. IOW, few, if any sources about 9/11 ever cover 9/11 CTs; only sources about 9/11 CTs or CTs in general cover 9/11 CTs. Please see WP:ONEWAY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you're familiar with the issue, and I respect your opinion; given the number of experienced editors who had various positions on this in the GAR, it's clear there's room for legitimate disagreement on how these policies apply. All I can do is say again that if you disagree with the previous consensus, and aren't willing to abide by that consensus, then build a new consensus--that seems like the only way this can move forward at this point. In any case, though, thanks for your work on this important topic. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: We already have consensus. It took two years of thoughtful discussion, multiple RfCs and participation of dozens, if not hundreds, of editors. Unfortunately, it only takes a single GA reviewer to reject community consensus. That's part of the problem. The other part is that 9/11 is a difficult topic. It's extremely easy to look at a bunch of primary sources and conclude that some aspect of this topic is under represented. What I would suggest to you is that you take some time to read the literature on this topic and ask yourself, "How often are CTs covered?" We've already done the research and the best we can come up with was a single sentence in one CNN article and in a book on 9/11 in popular culture (which is how the article currently treats CTs). In any case, please feel free to close this GA review. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not interested in making the article worse just to get a little green star in the corner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, I don't really understand what you're hoping to accomplish at this GA nom. You waited a week without commenting, and then an hour after I failed it for lack of participation, you showed up to complain about the fail. You know that different groups of editors have come to different consensuses on this point, but for some reason you're pretending that this issue has long been resolved and I alone ("a single reviewer to reject community consensus") am standing in its way. C'mon, even you don't think that's true.

If you feel that the prior RfC consensus trumps the GAR consensus about how the policies apply here, that's totally fine with me. But you need to demonstrate that this is the greater consensus by getting the participants from both venues on one page and having an uninvolved admin close it in your favor. You could also appeal the outcome of this review and try to build a new consensus at GAR--also fine with me. A third option might be to find another venue to appeal to that could rule on whether the RfCs supersede the later GAR. The bottom line is there are plenty of positive, productive outlets you could put this energy into, instead of complaining about a GA review in which you didn't participate that's already closed. Why not go for it and see if this issue can be brought to resolution? Either way, this'll be my last note here. Best of luck on this topic; as I said, I do really appreciate your work, and I hope that this one can get those GA and FA stars back in the future. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: I don't hope to accomplish anything at the GA nomination. I am not responding to the GA nomination. Instead, I'm responding to the posts you are making at the September 11 attacks talk page (which is transcribed from the GA nom pages in case you've forgotten). Instead of actually finding real issues with the article, you've focused your attention on a non-issue and I am trying to help explain to you why it is a non-issue. If you hadn't focused on it, I would not have tried to explain it. But you did, and I'm tried to help you understand. Apparently, my help is not appreciated. Which is fine. The GA/FA process is clearly flawed and I have no great desire to try to fix it. (To be honest, if you really wanted to know what the most serious issues are with the article, you could have asked, and I would have told you.) But you keep making incorrect claims to the September 11 attacks talk page and that's why I keep correcting them. So you can either do the research as I suggested, stop posting to the September 11 attacks talk page, or continue to make incorrect claims to the September 11 attacks talk page and expect responses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you're posting to the GA nomination that "I don't hope to accomplish anything at the GA nomination", that pretty much says it all. Thanks, though, for the input. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what says it all, is what says it all. I'm not sure why you continue to post here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've spent a number of hours today writing and rewriting arguments for why this shouldn't have been failed, including reopening the discussion after its close; for somebody who doesn't care about the GA process, you're pretty persistent about the GA process. But I do guiltily admit to taking the bait... I suppose it's just been a slow day at this end, but still, you're right that I should know better. Let's agree to disagree and part friends. My apologies for not stepping out sooner. Cheers, and thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think AQFK or myself were arguing with you, we just oppose any nonsense in an article that is supposed to be about what happened, not about what didn't happen. Equal time (and then some) IS given in the CT articles...since they are ABOUT the CT's. First the POV pushers wanted links, then sentences, then paragraghs...there never seems to be an end to the quantity of coverage they want devoted to those idiotic conspiracy theories.--MONGO 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see the sense of your argument, even if I'm slightly further down the spectrum. Hopefully sometime soon a discussion can be opened to reconcile the two groups, or at least establish what the broader consensus really is. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I'm currently seeing only one sentence on the conspiracy theories in this article. In the past, there was an entire one-paragraph section which summarized the major alternative theories. I don't agree with the reduction to one sentence. I think a small one or two paragraph section would be more appropriate, based on the amount of media attention the alternative theories have received and the number of notable individuals who have supported the theories. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cla68: You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how WP:NPOV is supposed to work. Articles should cover majority and significant minority viewpoints. Tiny minority and fringe don't belong on Wikipedia except perhaps on some ancillary article. 9/11 conspiracy theories is that article. I suggest that if you want such a sweeping overhaul to NPOV, then you should seek consensus there for your changes first. Until then, this article should follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We appear to be in disagreement on the issue. I believe the article as is is not in compliance with the NPOV policy. Please note that the GA reviewer above appears to have a similar opinion. Until this otherwise fine article complies with the NPOV policy, it will likely not be able to progress through GA and FA. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cla68: We're not going to make the article worse just so we can get a star in the upper-right hand corner. Until you gain consensus to change NPOV, there's nothing we can do here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One easy way to determine if we're dealing with a POV pusher of 9/11 conspiracy theories is seeing how many times they refer to such notions as "alternate". Notice also that the only suggestions Cla68 ever has regarding improvements to this article are almost exclusively limited to an expansion on conspiracy theories.--MONGO 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As a minor correction to Cla's citation of me here (I'm the GA reviewer in question), I don't actually think the conspiracy/alternate theories need to be included for NPOV reasons--I agree that they're too fringey and widely discredited. The main problem for GA status is that they can be argued to be a "main aspect" of the 9/11 aftermath, not as a legitimate version of events, but a social consequence, if that distinction makes sense. (Much as we discuss intelligent design in the evolution article while noting carefully that it's a psuedoscience).

Those who supported delisting at the previous GAR appear split between those who wanted conspiracy theories as an explanation and those who simply wanted them briefly discussed as a phenomenon. If the concerns of the latter were addressed, I suspect this could return to being a Good Article without much difficulty. I'll bow out after this comment, but feel free to ping me if this does go to an RfC, GAN, or GAR again in the near future. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, there are mainstream scientific papers aiming to debunk the theories that refer to them as "alternative theories" so, while I think "conspiracy theories" is fine, using "alternative theories" does not indicate a POV issue with an editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does.--MONGO 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

MONGO is correct here. Saying 'alternative theory' implies that those 'theories' are just as legitimate as the actual account. Using the term 'conspiracy theory', which is the only accurate term to use, describes them as they are - crackpot theories that have no basis in reality. You can tell a lot about the beliefs of people just by the use of the term, because only a person who believes the theories are legitimate or based on facts would equate them to what actually happened. Toa Nidhiki05 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope I am adding a comment the right way. The only way I could figure out to add a comment was to edit this area. I was just going to point out that conspiracy does not mean something is not based in reality. I think the meaning of that term in popular usage has changed. A conspiracy is the act of conspiring: doing something illegal or harmful in a secretive way. In the phrase "conspiracy theory," conspiracy is not describing the word theory as being not based in reality; it's simply saying what the theory regards. I don't have an opinion or information to add one way or the other on the debate. But I was just going to point out that a conspiracy theory is probably a subset of the term alternative theories, and it shouldn't in theory hold a negative connotation. Although, I understand it probably does.Swingerofbirches24 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories have been universally disproven time and time again, sure making reference to them is relevant, yet an entire paragraph is pushing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander9595 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Casualties subsection

The last paragraph of the casualties subsection seems a bit recent-ist and could likely be condensed. I'll leave that up to the regular editors of this article. NW (Talk) 05:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and simply removed the paragraph. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Time zones

The times of the incidents are given as "8:46 a.m.", etc. For events with international consequences, it would be helpful to know the UTC versions of these times. Maproom (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Patriot Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and other effects on civil liberties

[4] Many, if not most, of the articles related to the recent Verizon/NSA controversy mention that this is a result of the Patriot Act and other government actions enacted in response to 9/11 that have affected civil liberties. I believe that the sources support, especially after this NSA news, putting a section in the article detailing the actions by the government in response to the 9/11 attacks which have had controversial ramifications on civil liberties. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about a section devoted to it, but this should be more heavily incorporated into the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous...why are we continuing to drift away from the subject matter of the event? I think the article is already overloaded with things that have nothing to do with where the focus of this article needs to be.--MONGO 02:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mongo. This article should continue to focus on the events of 9/11.JOJ ^Hutton 03:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I only partially agree in that I think there are a lot of unnecessary details presently, but we can't provide a comprehensive perspective on the event without giving more significant mention to Gitmo, enhanced interrogations, the Patriot Act, etc. as these were all direct results of the attacks and part of their historic impact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But its a but of a stretch of information on what is exactly being proposed, which is the link between 9/11 and the current NSA scandal. JOJ ^Hutton 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jojhutton. Adding here material about PRISM, which is apparently the succussor of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was itself part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was an element of the War on Terror, which was a result of the September 11 attacks, is a stretch. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 was not limiting himself to that, but suggesting a general elaboration on the effect the domestic response to 9/11 had on civil liberties. How much PRISM should be mentioned, if it should be mentioned at all, seems less important than the broader point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

9/11's effect on civil liberties is already in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not in any way that is meaningful. You have a defensive sentence or two buried in some section. That is not even remotely enough.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Some argue that these measures prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. How much space in the article is devoted to that POV? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the event of 9/11. try Aftermath of the September 11 attacks for more detail.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird...I was just on the phone and I heard a clicking in the background and got disconnected from my call and then a voice came on and I said who is this, and he asked who I was and I said you first and so he said Barack Hussein Obama and I said oh wow cool...and then he asked how I was doing and I said well, anyway you can lower my taxes...and then the phone went dead.--MONGO 05:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "American response" section has a fairly good summary of the domestic measures the Bush and Obama administrations have taken in response to the attacks. Now that it's coming out that the NSA has been secretly, with cooperation by the Internet giants, vacuuming up and indexing large amounts of data as well as almost all phone calls from and to the US and storing it all in a giant database in southern Utah, perhaps a sentence on that could be added to the paragraph. This is a major story and it is related to the attacks. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I still feel this article is already suffering from coatrack issues. AQFK worked hard to get all the refs updated and to try and touch on the various details in an effort to appease everyone and followed summary style to do so. I'm just not seeing how more expansion is necessary on such details.--MONGO 15:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How about something like, "Legal and constitutional law experts have expressed concern over the extensive covert data mining and collection by the NSA and other US government agencies, but the US public appear to have generally accepted their government's surveillance actions." Using This article as the source. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh...I don't know if the public generally accepts the government doing all this data mining...it may say that in the article, but I don't know if thats just editorial suspicions or based on real public opinion polls.--MONGO 02:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No context regarding "Hani Hanjour"

The article launches into discussion of this person with no prior context. Nothing leads into this paragraph and as such it is written poorly. Someone with knowledge needs to preface who Hani Hanjour was before discussing why he was relevant.

"New recruits were routinely screened for special skills and al-Qaeda leaders consequently discovered that Hani Hanjour already had a commercial pilot's license.[156]"