Talk:September 11 attacks

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

---

---

The archives of the discussion of the September 11, 2001 attacks article may be found here:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

15

---

Archive this Page

Here are a list of headings that have nothing to do with improving the article. I suggest we archive, tell people to move this "debate", if it can be called that, to the conspiracy page.

"allegedly" - refers to hijacker's culpability

Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Loose Change

Description of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy Video

Culpability

Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones

need these photos

Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact.

Conspiracy theorists.

The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale

Explain these anamolies

84%!

Lost conspiracies

Asymetrical POV

Favor Archiving

C. Nelson - This seems to me like a no brainer. Discussion is off track.

Oppose

Or perhaps someone wants to refactor? If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.

I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Breath of fresh air. nice. --Mmx1 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"

Hello. I'm new here at the Wikipedia. But, when reading this article, I noticed that instead the typical "Controversy" sub-secction found in many of this Enciclopedia's articles, there's one called "Conspiracy Theories". This name is itself biased and in my opinion should be replaced by the typical and unbiased term "Controversy". I tryied to change this, but my edit was removed, what is the right procedure to do this?

Normal nick 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --Golbez 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? Normal nick 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

People will respond. A compromise will be found. If not, then you go to the next step, with is a Request for Comment from the community. --Golbez 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this pov wording is supported by many editors who prefer marginalizing independent researchers and critics of official 9/11 stonewalling, by stretching the meaning of npov beyond all recognition. Thank you for bringing the point up for discussion. The 'official' accounts have continued to lose credibility (along with most every aspect of the Bush administration), not simply because of the conflicts of interest and whitewashing that characterized the 9/11 commission, but also because new answers about what really happened have lent additional credence to alternative scenarios. Yes, it is time for an RfC. Ombudsman 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Controversy"

Controversies sections exist where there are some common facts and opinions differ on their interpretation and significance. So the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is controversial. Use of steroids in baseball is controversial. The gap between the facts according to the 9/11 commission and the conspiracy theories is too large to be considered a controversy. patsw 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw, although I also don't think that "Conspiracy theory" has such negative conotations that it will become a problem. I think we all agree that the claims are "theories" (in the colloquial sense) about "conspiracies." If a "controversy" section had anything in it, would be about whether the gov was incompetent in not stopping the attacks or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is controversy over the whole thing. I havent heard so much controversy about anything.

"Controversy on the diccionary". There are several different views about the topic and there are arguments based on facts on both sides. There is a public dispute between sides holding oposing views. I don't understand why don't you want to use the regular word for the name of this secction, I continue to believe that oposing to this change is biased. I can try to explain why: The set of words "conspiracy theories" has a bashing effect on the credebility of one of the sides of the dispute, and by using it, you're yourself taking part on the dispute as one that agrees with one side. You seem to deny there is a controversy here, but it's quite obvious there is one. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't exist movies about it nor this talk page would be so full. By other mean, not all the controversy about this happening has to do with conspiracies, and much of it is about simple isolated facts.Normal nick 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to use the word controversy and insisting on using the tag 'conspiracy theorist' unquestionably has an undeserved credibility bashing effect on anyone who expresses ideas or views that may contradict the 'official story' or mainstream media. I think this is intentional in many cases. And there are many credible sources outside of these. SkeenaR 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a controversy, but it's of the Earth is Round vs. Flat Earth type -- there may be people that believe that the Earth is flat, but it's not a credible theory that merits serious consideration. Morton devonshire 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That argument is funny, because if there had been a Wikipedia at that time, then, at the earth talk page many would mention the uncredability of the possibility of the earth beeing round. Every theory deserves consideration, as long as you can't prove it wrong. And even wrong theories deserve a page here at the wikipedia, as long as you mention they are wrong.Normal nick 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The conflict is from amateurs looking at a photograph and trying to put their random guesses on an equal footing with the professional assertions of the people who designed and built the towers or who analyzed the collapse scientifically. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the appropriate articles. If a particular theory gains credibility (in the professional engineering sense), then it might in future be moved to this article. Peter Grey 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The conflicts regarding what the true circumstances are behind this event are far more wide ranging than the collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with Peter Grey. Even though, there is no reason that justifies the biased and unstandard use of terminology. You guys couldn't sill explain me what justfies to remove an edit from "Conspiracy theories" to the regular "Controversy". I remember you that not all the controversy about this issue has to do with any kind of conspiracy. Remeber also that much of the info reported in this article has the United States government as the only source, wich is clearly an highly biased source. Now, please justify the use of the title "conspiracy theories" instead of the regular "controversy". Normal nick 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing. There simply is zero proof of either U.S. Government involvement or controlled demolition or actions by Israeli operatives that has any basis in fact. It is all simply wide eyed conspiracy theory rhetoric. That is why the section is noted as Conspiracy Theories and that is why this junk science is all in subpages. If you want to fill Wikipedia up with junk science, then do so over in those articles, not here. Thanks.--MONGO 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Motivations for the Change

I think it is up to you to show why conspiracy theory is not suitable for a title. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not beeing suitable, but of beeing worse. It's simple:

• Wikipedia is suposed to be the more neutral possible when exposing controversial issues. Any natural language words are non-neutral by themselves, Wikipedia is made of those. If the expression "Controversy" is more neutral than "Conspiracy theories", then it's use improves Wikipedia quality comparing to the use of the current title, because it makes wikipedia to be more neutral.
• By other mean, the word "Controversy" is used in many other Wikipedia's articles. Then, using it here for the same sort of content will improve Wikipedia's Orthogonality as a Human-Machine Interface, making it easier for the users to find the information they look for.
• Finally, the word "Controversy" is much more general than the expression currently beeing used. By making the change I propose, references to controversy about conspiracies and controversy about simple and isolated facts can be adequatly separated inside this section.Normal nick 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. JoshuaZ 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"Normal nick 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that argument before, and I don't find it persuasive. Conspiracy theory is a perfectly correct term. Calling them anything other than what they are is just inaccurate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The matter here is not if it is correct or not, but if it is best than "Controversy". By your non-arguments i see it's not.

Controversy shouldn't be allowed

I dispute that the numerous Controversy sections which appear in articles are helpful. It's a method used by POV-pushers to assign more weight to critics regarless of their credibility. Other encyclopedias through the ages didn't see a need for them. patsw 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about that, but that ain't a thing to be discussed here on this particular talk page.

Try Wikipedia's first page talk for that, but i remember you that those sections can be seen as a tool for both POV and NPOV pushersNormal nick 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Normal nick, if your recent entries are appropriate to be discussed on this particular talk page, my replies to you are as well. patsw 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by the way I replied, I should have justified why I said that. That problem you are talking about is something that guives respect to the whole wikipedia, then, it should be discussed in some page related to the wikipedia's policies, and not on this one. Continuing that argumentation you started is off-topic and leads nowhere. You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong. Particularily, you are argumentating against something that is clearly defined as necessary for NPOV in Wikipedia's rules. Normal nick 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:

"All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."Normal nick 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The points of view Normal nick speaks of have no basis in fact...they are just nonsense...and that is why they are not in this article.--MONGO 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are based on facts. It's a fact that outside the pentagon there were no airplane debris. And it's a fact that the way the towers have fallen it's weirdly similar to implosion demolitions. About the others, i can't tell if they are facts or no. I didn't see them.Normal nick 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, zero of this nonsense is based on facts...you didn't see them...I did...no aircraft parts at the Pentagon?...examine this image...see those folks in the white hazmat suits near the orange crane...to the right slightly is some of the remains of the aircraft...they are in hazmat outfits due to the biohazard from the people that died on the plane and in the building. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...when some one can prove it, then it can go in this article....got it?--MONGO 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• No wings nor any other big parts. This is fact..
• There is no proff about controled demonition, you are right, but there are proffs it looked like a controled demolition.

You are wrong...they did find a lot of aircraft parts at the Pentagon. You're a conspiracy theorists and you have no facts...the buildings at the WTC were not imploded. There is no evidence that proves implosion.--MONGO 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know whether a plane realy crashed against the pentagon, neither do you. But there are no big parts of any plane at that photos or movies. This is a fact.
• I don't know if there was a controled demolition, neither do you. But the fall of the buildings looks like one. And this is a fact.Normal nick 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do know a plane hit the pentagon...I work for USDHS. The fall of the buildings at the WTC may look like controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean that it was...do you have proof of controlled demolition?...oh, I see, I didn't think so.--MONGO 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour Archiving This Talk Section

Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)