Result: The outcome of the reassessment is to delistSeptember 11 attacks as a good article. I'll set out my reasoning below.
1. In reaching this decision I've only considered arguments based directly on WP:WIAGA, which provides a set of reasonably objective criteria that an article can be compared against. I mention this explicitly because one recurring theme in the discussion is the existence of editor consensus about article content. While this is fine in itself, in my view it has no bearing on GA assessment and cannot be used to disregard or weaken GA requirements.
2. Perhaps the most significant objection raised is the lack of any mention of alternative theories. This is held to be in contravention of criterion 3(a)—that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". The 'delist' position relies on the assertion that 9/11 conspiracy theories, while nonsensical and lunatic, have nevertheless become significantly enough embedded in the public consciousness as to constitute a "main aspect of the topic". No-one has effectively challenged this assertion, thus the counter argument (focusing only on WIAGA) is that GA's requirement for "broadness" is weak enough to permit an aspect of the topic to be excluded. While I appreciate that editors have good reasons for not wanting alternative theories mentioned in the article, what I've taken from the discussion is that this was an editorial decision rather than, say, a lack of suitable sourcing. This appears to me to be a misunderstanding of the reason for "broadness" as opposed to "comprehensiveness"—it's the former that permits articles to pass GAN that would never pass FAC due to sourcing gaps. In essence there are two questions to answer: "Are alternative theories a major aspect of the topic?" and "Are they mentioned in the article?" The answers appear to be "Yes" and "No", in which case the article cannot meet 3(a).
3. Neutrality (criterion 4), defined by WIAGA as "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each", has also been highlighted as a possible area of non-compliance. This is clearly bound up with the alternative theory issue in that by deliberately excluding a viewpoint, the article cannot meet WIAGA 4 either.
4. The above is enough in itself to delist the article. However, additional comments dealt in some detail with the nature of the sources used (WIAGA 2, particularly the use of web and primary sources), article structure (WIAGA 1) and stability (WIAGA 5). Of these, structure and sourcing seem to be significant enough issues to give further cause for delisting the article.
Although this has been a lively and in places acrimonious process, I hope the article authors can take away the fact that the article has now undergone some extremely thorough reviews by a number of experienced editors which can be used to help guide the article's development. Anyone willing to tackle such a sensitive and controversial subject has my admiration, and I trust the article has and will improve as a result of this reassessment—which is, after all, what GA is really all about. Best, EyeSerenetalk20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was failed at GAN on 5 July[1] and passed after resubmission on 25 July. Both reviewers considered that the article may be a case for WP:IAR, incorrectly in my view. My primary concern is that this article does not present a balanced view of the events surrounding 9/11, sticking rigidly to the official government line. All alternative accounts (aka conspiracy theories) are completely ignored, not even included in the See also section. I believe this gives undue weight to one particular version of events. MalleusFatuorum18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share Malleus's concerns about NPOV by omission. In addition there are several other areas where the article's coverage has been limited, in spite of the presence of reliable sources we could use. I have outlined these in the talk page but have not yet received any substantive response. --John (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I expected to see here from Malleus. Malleus, least you could have done is surprised me....very disappointed. More...later.MONGO19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find me as easy to intimidate as you have some others MONGO. Now please try not further lower the tone here by personalising my concerns about this article's recent promotion. MalleusFatuorum20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No intimidaton intended. I never once saw your concerns about the alleged POV issues at the article Rfa's which involved dozens of editors who twice reached an overwhelming consensus to not include conspiracy theories. In fact, in an effort to streamline and reduce the POV issues, two to three paragraphs which detailed the celebrations that broke out all over the Muslim (and even non-Muslim) regions of the world immediately after the attacks, were removed, though they were excellently referenced and the section was well written. What you want is a coatrack article which, instead of providing the best reliable witness to the immediate events, instead dwelves into psuedoscience, innuendo and fanciful misrepresentations. The article was promoted to GA (a process I was not involved in) and subsequently, in the drive to get it to FA level, the article HAS had major improvements in prose, MOS issues and other criteria. I myself have stated it still needs to be refined greatly before it is FA material, but the improvements alone since the GA promotion makes your attempt here appear to be nothing other than pettiness. Here you show your plan, a plan that has all the appearances of revenge for perceived slights rather than a goal of article improvement...you make it clear you intend to tear the article down rather than build it up....but instead of EDITING the article or contributing to the talk page there to voice your concerns, you do this action, which is exactly why I stated it is no surprise...that is not the Wikipedia way and I think you must be reminded to not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. So, in light of the fact that this article has seen major improvements since the GA promotion and that your action here is done, in my opinion, in bad faith, I certainly cannot support a demotion from its GA rating.--MONGO22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC on the subject of the conspiracy theories a few months ago (link) which produced a consensus that they were not to be included. Describing the viewpoint of virtually all reliable sources as "the official government line" is a serious misrepresentation. Hut 8.520:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the straw poll on extirpating all mention of conspiracies was a terrible idea. Local consensus does not override sitewide policies like NPOV, and nor should it be allowed to override GAR. An article about 9/11 which only gives the US government view is like an article on the Pearl Harbor attacks which neglects to mention both the poor preparedness of the defenders and the fact that the attack catapulted America into a World War. Do please note that there are other reasons to fail this article besides the omission of mention of conspiracy theories, that's just a really obvious example; see my comment just above and the longer discussion in article talk for some of the other suggestions towards improving the article which have been stonewalled. --John (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the government view...then why are the vast majority of sources from newspapers and books and not published or sponsored by the government of the U.S.? Are you suggesting that the newspapers are being told what to print by the government?--MONGO23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. The question at hand is whether the article meets the GA criteria, in particular 3(a) (coverage) and 4 (neutrality), but there may also be other issues to consider (prose? words to watch? synthesis?). The recent RfC/poll is only useful to the extent that the arguments made there may inform the present discussion. In my view, the poll was flawed, but my opinion, the outcome of the poll, whether the RfC was a good idea/well managed or not, etc. - these considerations are essentially irrelevant. This is an emotive topic, and personal agendas or disagreements need to be put to one side. Does the article meet the criteria or not? That is all. Geometry guy22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not a fan of fringe theories, let alone conspiracy theories. However, where those theories become a significant topic of public discourse, it is unencyclopedic and even irresponsible not to discuss them in an encyclopedia article. Avoiding mentioning them only feeds the conspiracy theory, whereas making the reader aware that the theory is widely known and discounted by most reliable sources allows them to make a more informed decision. This is an issue faced by many articles, such as Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Moon landing/Apollo program, Area 51, Loch Ness, etc. When involved in one such article, I suggest to consider how you might approach the treatment of conspiracy/fringe theories in some of the others. Geometry guy22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This continued emphasis on "conspiracy theories" is disingenuous. The first plane struck at 8:46 am, the last at 10:03 am, 77 minutes later. It needs to be explained why the USAF apparently made no effort to intercept any of these hijacked aircraft, and what if anything has done since then to deal with a future incident like this one. The controlled demolition theory has also had some support from academic physicists and needs to be at least mentioned, not ignored. MalleusFatuorum23:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It needs to be explained...". No it doesn't unless there are reliable sources which raise the question. If there are, Wikipedia should report how the question is discussed in reliable sources. Geometry guy00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but let me be more precise. I'm not talking about the whacky idea that Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11 and that he ordered them to stand down, but a rational discussion of why NORAD was powerless to do anything and what, if anything has changed to make NORAD, less ineffectual if something similar should happen again. It seems ridiculous to me to argue that this article on an air attack could be considered to be sufficiently broad to meet the GA criteria when it fails to address the issue of the US's air defences on the grounds that to do so would be to give weight to fringe theories. MalleusFatuorum01:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me be more precise also. It is not the role of Wikipedia to act as a political commentator on the state of the US air defense in general, or NORAD in particular. Nor is it our role to improve US air defenses. The GA criteria are not based on what "seems ridiculous" to an individual editor. Geometry guy01:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know the GA criteria at least as well as you do. It is my firm belief that by omitting such information, along with completely ignoring the entire issue of the various conspiracy theories, that the article fails to meet criterion 3a. You are of course free to disagree, but you are unlikely to change my mind. MalleusFatuorum01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already raised the issue above that the article might not meet 3a, but I have not settled on a position. I cannot therefore attempt to change your mind to my position, as I don't have one. What is needed below is good reasoning. Geometry guy01:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be brave and point out the elephant in the room here. The last time I tried to help at this article two years ago, an IP was trying to add information regarding the non-response of the USAF. I supplied a decent book source, but the suggestion was not taken up. The debate finished up with "how do you report these fringe/POV problems? I want to report violations like this" and I walked away disgusted. Nobody challenged the contention by User:Dcs002 that this constructive and certainly well-intentioned suggestion was a "violation". Multiply this by a large number and you have an article that looks like this. The talk page is not a friendly place to go; as recently as yesterday I made what I thought was a constructive suggestion there, to be met with snark. I hate to say it, but there has been a long-term user conduct problem there, and this has held the article back. For it to improve, user conduct around this article would need to improve. I have no idea how to accomplish this. On the specific point of the USAF non-response, I can easily provide two excellent book sources, if there is any will to include this type of material, something I am currently unconvinced of. --John (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point out as well that it was a "fringe idea" in the early 19th century that the human body could survive the stresses of travelling faster than 30 mph. Fringe ideas are not by definition wrong, and need to be given due weight, whatever that is, not ignored. MalleusFatuorum23:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and John are promoting conspiracy theories...you say physicists question the collapse of the towers...which physicists....show me where their information has been published by a reliable source which provides peer review. You mention NORAD...the airforce being told to step down...so what. You think without know how many, which, where hijacked aircraft were in the air...you must have been reading some really bad information to sound so utterly ignorant. Seriously, you and John sound like you both have no idea what the theory of occums razor is when applied to these conspiracy theories...that either of you two can't seem to understand that these are conspiracy theories indicates to me that you are either extremely ill inform or ignorant. John should have been topic banned from 9/11 related articles years ago...his interest in what goes in them has almost universally been fringe info...even by progressive standards. It should be noted that a periperal article on 7 WTC was John's old haunt...where under his old username he almost ceaselessly tried to get CT nonsense mainstreamed there in a massive POV push...so this is just more of the same...7 WTC is an FA thanks to Aude who opposed John for admin...I should have followed her lead. Does all this sound like persoanl attacks...I hope so...I'm sick and tired of fringe theory promoters keeping this and other articles in the dark ages with their constant demands for NPOV coverage of nonsense. MONGO04:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least I can spell Occam's razor, which doesn't demand that we ignore valid questions such as NORAD's inactivity but rather adopt the simplest plausible explanation for them. It is not a fringe theory to state quite simply that in the aftermath of the attacks doubts were expressed that the collapse of the Twin Towers could have been caused by the impact of the aircraft alone. But this article also has many others problems not yet touched on, not least its overall structure and general feel of flabbiness and turgidity in the writing, none of which can be fixed in the face of such stubborn aggression as you habitually display. MalleusFatuorum14:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article easily satisfies GA criteria...but needs consolidation to be an FA...therefore your efforts to at synthesis by cherry picking misinformation to suit your POV and to promote fringe material would have zero room for coverage in an FA level article about this event. There may be a place for your speculations and innuendo in a daughter article, but not here.MONGO15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have considerably more experience of what is and isn't required of a GA than you do MONGO, and if I believed that this article met the GA criteria then I obviously would not have initiated this reassessment. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your desperate claims of "innuendo" or "misinformation", or deliberately close to your eyes to this article's fundamental bias and gaps, it will not change the truth. Which is that in my view it does not meet GA criterion 3a. MalleusFatuorum16:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quit your day job if this is as good as you can do for trying to establish some basis to demote this article. Like I showed above, your motives are obvious and your pettiness overt. Your basis of the issue is your claim the article is biased since it doesn't dwelve into conspiracy and fringe theories that only uneducated and/or ignorant people pay attention to. You don't seem to have any understanding of the undue weight clause of NPOV or ONEWAY.MONGO19:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your continuing personal attacks are doing your case no favours MONGO, and as I said at the start of this review, you will not find it as easy to intimidate me as you have done certain other editors. So no point in persisting with it, it won't work. MalleusFatuorum19:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise....that you'd think I find your commentary since we first met to be anything other than insulting would be a laugh...--MONGO22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The controlled demolition theory has also had some support from academic physicists - one academic physicist (Steven E. Jones, previously known for his work on nuclear fusion) has given it support. As a result he was placed on leave from his university and the departments of physics and engineering issued statements saying they do not support his theories. The controlled demolition theory has had hardly any impact in the scientific community and there are sources which support this assertion.
The other issue which has been raised is that the article does not discuss the reasons why the US Air Force did not intercept the flights. This is a perfectly legitimate topic discussed in reliable sources and is not a fringe theory (not necessarily, anyway). The issue is not whether Wikipedia should cover it, but where Wikipedia should cover it. This is quite a detailed point, the article is already quite long, and there is a sub-article on the topic at U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. GA criterion 3b states that articles shouldn't go into unnecessary details and should delegate them to sub-articles. Hut 8.514:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has never been whether or not Wikipedia should cover the topic of NORAD's lack of action but whether this article should. This is an article on an air attack that completely ignores the question of air defence, which I think you'll find a hard sell to persuade anyone is "unnecessary detail". MalleusFatuorum14:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So people have found yet another forum to argue for the inclusion and/or expansion of conspiracy theories in the article. Well, the scope and wieghting of topics is determined by the reliable sources. These make clear that those theories are too peripheral to include, so I don't see there's much to be done. My advice is not to let GA, or FA, or any of that be used as a lever to distort the article. Tom HarrisonTalk14:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I'm sure that editors here, regardless of their pov, are well aware of current google trends. It is now undeniable that 9/11 conspiracy theories have entered the mainstream (aol, bbc, guardian, slate, al jazeera…). With regards to our basic policies and guidelines, at this point in time there is simply no excuse. We cannot turn the blind eye and omit conspiracy theories from the main article dedicated to 9/11 attacks. DeifactedNethicite (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree too. I can't believe that you would think it was ok not to mention the conspiracy theories on this article. Just, wow. Also, there are five areas at article talk which editors are discussing towards restoring some NPOV to this article. How come you are only talking about one? My fear is that your side is the one obsessed with conspiracy theories. --John (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to have read ALL of this or the main article's discussion, but I've surely read most, and I find it notable that the prevalent, mainstream theory of 9/11 is never referred to as a conspiracy theory (which it is), and CTs are often referred to as 'wacky'. I think this belies a strong bias in the community of editors and agree that the article is weak because of it. That a reader can visit the page and see nothing about alternative theories is somewhat startling, although predictable given that there has been no thorough independent investigation of 9/11. Nonukes (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful if John and MONGO kept their interpersonal dispute and their own personal biases out of the question of whether or not the article the article meets the GA criteria. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree that it does not.
I'm not a fan of the conspiracy theories, in fact my personal opinion is that many of them are insulting to the memory of the 3,000 people who dies that day, but unfortunately, they are indisputably notable, they have had a lot of coverage in the mainstream media, and are getting a lot more as the tenth anniversary approaches. That they are not even mentioned in the article, not even under the "see also" section (but Survivor registry, of tangential relevance at best, is) smacks of (understandable, but unacceptable) wilful suppression and editorial censorship. I watched a fascinating documentary the other day that tackled some of the most prominent conspiracy theories (including NORAD's ineffectiveness, United 93 supposedly being shot down, the controlled demolition theory), by putting them to mainstream, (apparently) neutral experts, who dismissed them quite convincingly. By tackling the subject in context, we can avoid giving it undue weight.
But the conspiracy theories are not the only thing—John gives a few good examples on the talk page, and I'm not convinced the material on the aftermath is adequate.
The biggest problem the article faces is the atmosphere on the talk page, though, which is very hostile to the inclusion of anything currently excluded or the exclusion of anything currently included. It seems to me that a group of editors have done a remarkable job of greatly improving the article, but are extremely resistant to any further changes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a plethora of 9/11 related pages dedicated to conspiracy theories...this one should be dedicated to the facts.MONGO19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. And it's because vocal people like you are used to getting their way on the talk page, one way or the other, you've forgotten that your opinion is no more or less valid than anybody else's. But the fact of the matter is that any article that omits—suppresses, even—relevant, notable, and easily sourced details about its subject cannot possibly meet criterion 3a or 4. Frankly, I don't think the article ever will meet the GA criteria (never mind the FA criteria) until you depart from it or start considering that, just because you and the clique who behave like the article is their sovereign territory hold a contrary opinion, does not mean that a topic is not up for discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We all have opinions. We resolve disagreements on the talk page by discussion and argument, and sometimes we have an RfC. The structure and content of the page is the result of that process, and it reflects the scope and weighting in the reliable sources on 9/11. Anyone can participate and anyone can edit (except for a few under abrcom sanction). The article isn't ruled by a clique any more than the FA process is. There's no mechanism by which I could form a clique and rule. If I wanted to do that, I'd look elsewhere. So, apply whatever standards are appropriate for determining GA status, and keep it or revoke it accordingly. To change the article, engage on the talk page and get consensus for what you want. Tom HarrisonTalk20:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying all right-thinking men of goodwill agree with you, and your position would prevail through reason, but for the underhanded machinations of the shadowy cabal that runs the talk page. That's mistaken. Arguments to include the conspiracy theories will prevail if they're sound arguments supported by the weighting given the CTs in reliable sources. They haven't been sound, or supported by the literature. So far they've just been assertions that "my weighting is self-evidently the correct weighting for this topic," combined with personal condemnation of anyone who disagrees. Tom HarrisonTalk21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec w/Malleus) The problem is that the local consensus on that talk page is that the article is dandy, and that anybody suggesting otherwise is just being stubborn or disruptive. But local consensus on a talk page doesn't override core policy or the FA or GA criteria, and I'm afraid suppressing material because we don't like it doesn't make an article complete, however much we want it to. To give an example from my own experience, during the Iranian Embassy siege, Iran declared that the terrorists were CIA agents; the claim was plainly ridiculous, but it's included in the article and given due weight (which is not a lot) because it's relevant, and because presenting all viewpoints is a key element of neutrality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that no experienced GA reviewer would have listed the article as GA, but an inexperienced one was persuaded to as the result of pressure imposed by the 9/11 supporters, in particular MONGO. But the reviewers here are not so easily brushed aside. MalleusFatuorum22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just assert that your position is self-evidently NPOV and therfore must prevail, because NPOV is core policy. I mean, you can assert that, but it's no surprise that it's unpersuasive. That's not a problem with the talk page, that's the talk page functioning as designed. Tom HarrisonTalk21:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting word in my mouth, now. Disappointing, because I thought you were one of the more sensible editors there. But let's take that at face value for a minute: WP:NPOV is a core content policy; fact. The article currently only covers one viewpoint (the mainstream viewpoint); fact. NPOV and the GA criteria require that articles "[represent] viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each" (direct quote from WP:WIAGA); fact. So how can you continue to justify the suppression of even a mention of non-mainstream views if you want the article to attain GA or FA status? I hate to be the one advocating the inclusion of conspiracy theories, but not a single other reliable source I've seen doesn't make even a mention of the conspiracy theories and you can't claim the article is neutral or comprehensive without at least acknowledging that they exist. And the conspiracy theories are the most controversial, but certainly not the only issue with this article's neutrality or coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Tom disagrees with you, he's being unsensible? I think Tom has made it clear regarding the talkpage...the references and additions you are suggesting for inclusion fail to be viable for a number of reasons, including especially the undue weight clause of NPOV and ONEWAY, and this has been brought forth at talk and repeatedly rejected. That you don't seem to grasp this is bewildering, but I feel saddened if you assume that just a small "clique" of editors have had this much control over this article. But perhaps this "clique" is trying to ensure the article doesn't become a COATRACK for every zany piece of innuendo and nonsense? To say that, "not a single other reliable source I've seen doesn't make even a mention of the conspiracy theories" indicates you simply are poorly read on the subject.--MONGO22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) @HJ Mitchell: Sorry, I may have conflated your argument with others. If it's a question of the due weight of a fringe view, 'The Looming Tower doesn't present the conspiracy theories to any significant degree, to give just one example. If most books about 9/11 included a chapter on the conspiracy theories, it would be due weight to mention the theories. They don't, so we don't. Part of the problem is these theories are far more prominent and heavily promoted on line and on Wikipedia, and that gives people a mistaken view of their importance in the literature, which is minimal. Tom HarrisonTalk22:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're perfectly entitled to take that line if you wish, but the bottom line is that if you do this article will likely lose its GA listing and will stand no chance of ever getting within shouting distance of FA. Is that what you want for it? If it is, then I suggest that you stop putting it forwards at review processes whose criteria it clearly fails to meet. MalleusFatuorum22:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content, scope, and weighting are determined by the literature, not by the GA/FA reviewers. I'm not prepared to distort the article for an FA star, so I guess I'll just have to do without, speaking only for myself. Tom HarrisonTalk22:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies require the content, scope, and weighting be determined by the reliable sources. I'm not prepared to deviate from that for a blob, or star, or a golden coronet, which you should really institute so there's something beyond FA to which people can aspire. Tom HarrisonTalk22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to miss the point. Both GA and FA are about independent assessments, not what you think. MalleusFatuorum
Our policies require the content, scope, and weighting be determined by the reliable sources. I'm not prepared to deviate from that for a blob, or star, or a golden coronet, which you should really institute so there's something beyond FA to which people can aspire. Tom HarrisonTalk22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, in other words, we need to violate policy so the article will fit your bias? Something is really wrong with this website when arbitrariness such as you indicate has sway over what is good and what is bad writing, and it's scary to see your wanton disregard of policy, reliable sourcing, undue weight and numerous other policies just so your POV is in article content. Your assumed powers are self appointed and consequently they are arbitrary and nonbinding.--MONGO23:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you continue to try and intimidate me. Better that you avoid any further personal comments and try to address the substantive issues being raised here as best you can. MalleusFatuorum23:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're intimidated it is your own doing. I am merely pointing out the facts of this case. That your actions here have malice, that you are self appointed and that, as I clearly stated, your disregard of policy, reliable sourcing, undue weight and numerous other policies just so your POV is in article content, is unWikipedian. The article is not worthy of GA because it doesn't fit your POV...you have made that clear...however, we will not violate policy just so it will, and therefore it cannot be demoted whether you like that or not.--MONGO23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, you really do need to wake up. You are one of the major impediments to this article ever being a neutral account of the events on that day. No amount of abuse will ever change that simple fact. MalleusFatuorum00:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, one substantive issue of due weight is addressed just above (and at great length in the talk page archives): To include the conspiracy theories would give them undue weight - prominance disproportionate to that given by the reliable sources and the literature about 9/11. It's not useful to refuse to acknowledge the issue or to address it, simply repeating that you're right and I'm wrong. Tom HarrisonTalk00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, not mine. My opinion is that to deliberately ignore alternative views, even when they've been reported in reliable sources, is unacceptable. MalleusFatuorum00:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore nothing. There is a level of reliable sources that need to be accumulated to overturn the current consensus, and no one has be able to provide them. The majority belongs in related articles and not this one. Fringe is fringe for a reason. If you are so willing to ignore years of established consensus just to remove GA, then perhaps you should re-examine what you hope to achieve in this project. --Tarage (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of issues, there remains un-addressed the substantive issue I thought you wanted to take up, based on what you wrote above. It's been reported in reliable sources that some people think the Jews did it. It's been reported in reliable sources that a few Palestinians danced in the streets when they heard the news, and that others named their sons Osama. Those aren't in the article, and shouldn't be, because due weight is as binding as the rest of our policies. Tom HarrisonTalk01:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All articles, GA and otherwise, must follow our core policies. You can't substitute your own requirements for those policies. Or if you can, and GA is simply arbitrary, well, what's that worth? I'm puzzled that you keep asking people to talk about the substantive issues. The substantive issue is due weight, and you refuse to talk about it. Tom HarrisonTalk01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of blustering on my part. "You need to focus on the issues, not the individuals" as you said yourself just above. Due weight isn't optional. You say the article underweights the conspiracy theories. The literature and reliable sources say otherwise, as I point out above with an example. That's the substantive issue you still haven't addressed. Tom HarrisonTalk01:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many persuasive arguments made in the article talk page (which resulted in a decisive consensus against inclusion of CTs) was that RS did indeed mention CTs, but virtually all of them were RS about conspiracy theories, and not about the attacks themselves. In fact, it was established that nowhere in the 911 report, NIST reports, or any other official or mainstream scientific sources that deal strictly with the attacks are CTs even mentioned, let alone explored. Thus, the inclusion of CTs in an article on the attacks would be going against mainstream sources in giving them undue weight. Has this situation changed since the recent consensus was reached? If not, I see no point in rehashing this subject just to remove it from GA status. Shirtwaist☎07:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping by to offer the incredibly helpful observation that this is why I focus on history-related articles rather than current events. 9/11 is still treated as "current events" in the US (every election cycle). No matter how you distill it, vet it, or summarize it, it's hard to see how you can take all the craziness in constant circulation and make an article that's simultaneously going to pass the GA criteria and also be stable ... if it brings up every hot-button (but non-fringe) issue around, then you're going to need an army of Wikipedians to maintain the article, and our armies are depleted. I've been shamefully AWOL at GAR and I don't want to offer a vote on a call that's this tough, but reading the discussion has made me very skeptical that this will ever get to FA if it does survive the GAR. - Dank (push to talk) 10:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too just dropping by - to be honest I was very surprised to see this pass the GA review in the first place. I believe we had an inexperienced reviewer (just as with 2012 (film) that has no refs in the first huge section - yet passed the review), Not trying to knock the reviewer (I am sure they had noting but the best intention) just that its clear the article was passed with a "minor review process". Many concerns were not address in the review and are still an ongoing issue. Moxy (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must be easily intimidated then. Surprise...I nominated Moxy for admin...and was sad to see him/her not succeed...so Moxy surely knows my comments were not and never meant to be "intimidating" or "brow-beating".--MONGO03:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding conspiracy theories, there was an lengthy discussion that lasted months and included 2 RfCs, and consensus was against inclusion. I'm not sure what more could have possibly have been done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not your RfCs. You may decide to do whatever you like locally, but here we're concerned about judging whether or not the article meets the GA criteria. MalleusFatuorum03:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this reassessment is simply over the issue of wanting to give undue weight to a fringe theory, then this is all much ado about nothing. WP:NPOV does not require crank theories be given equal time or even mention. Can this reassessment be speedily closed? This doesn't seem to be a legitimate issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have to come up with a reason for why it doesn't meet WP:GA. Your complaint seems to be that you want the article to give undue weight to crank theories. All articles must follow WP:NPOV. If you cannot come up with a legitimate reason why this article doesn't meet WP:GA, then I would say that the discussion has run its course, and it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can only be closed by a bonafide GA expert like Malleus...and surely no pun intended for myself and others have witnessed how Malleus is indeed the end all be all and we must bow to him and his authority. WE........are not worthy.--MONGO03:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I failed this at GA2 and felt that the editor promptly shopped for another reviewer to pass it with many of the issues remaining unresolved.
The first sentence still does not make it clear that the 9/11 is most often pronounced as a pair of numbers (nine-eleven).
I noted that the responder total was unclear, so it is now buried. The lead should probably have an exact total, with an exact total of responders and an exact total of hijackers.
I am still unsure what the first 85 seconds of the security footage is all about.
However, most of the rest of my concerns are now resolved. I would probably pass this with some minor tinkering, now. The big thing that I think needs addressing is how to explain that 9/11 is pronounced as nine-eleven.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In its present form the article is pamphlet which boldly steps into pure propaganda. Although most of you will feel the need to jump the guns, restrain. It is so from many perspectives. Editors who work there are caught in obvious, I’d say vulgar disregard to our very basic policies and guidelines. We have narrative that completely, inexplicably, ignores any issues that do not resonate with very strong pov of the editors who own 9/11 attacks article. It is so from top to bottom. You can’t have a section on Commission report and fail to mention criticism. It’s not a failure, its omission. You cannot disregard the peculiarities of wtc 7 to extant it’s done here. It’s not a failure, its omission. I see here and on the talk page there that editors have very strong pov on conspiracy theories, calling them fringe and crank and similes. This is pure denial; you cannot have such constructs as “fringe mainstream”, it shows that most of you involved in building that mockery are very passionate about the subject and should be excluded from contributing to it in first place. As for this apparent consensus, which is mentioned here and there, do get a grip on reality. Editors who spent more than half of decade on 9/11 realted articles forcing their pov and using their administrative privileges to maliciously attack, coerce and deny other peoples arguments on the issues cannot build consensus. They can enforce it, and there is a name for it. We have long history at article talk page; worries about npov are reoccurring there in regular cycles and relevant discussions show beyond any doubt that small and vocal minority is breaking all of our rules. Deal with it. DeifactedNethicite (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at a previous GA review; the lack of any mention at all of conspiracy theories is highly concerning - this article does not adequately cover the topic from the perspective of a reader. Due weight is not given to the conspiracy theories. --Errant(chat!)17:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:DeifactedNethicite, everything you say is backwards from reality. ErrantX, the reliable sources do not discuss CT's in a prominent way so if we had them here we would be violating policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:ONEWAY.--MONGO17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We (others) have tried to show all this before - even books by a nobel literature winner is not reliable according to those on the talk page - I asked out right if "any reference" would ever be reliable and the answer was no - with a round about reasoning. This would be the point I felt there was no need in talking anymore as it was clear that there views are steadfast regardless of were the references come from. The fact this point comes up ever month or so for the past 5 years should be a hint to those involed with the article that all is not inline with reality of the situation. Still at a lost as to why they will not confront the issues in the article instead omit it .Moxy (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that there aren't reliable sources about the conspiracy theories, it's that the reliable sources writing about 9/11 give little or no space to the conspiracy theories. It would be undue weight for us to give them more prominence than the literature does. Tom HarrisonTalk21:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should not "give them more prominence than the literature does." Yet we dont mention it at all!!!! In fact articles about this topics have been completely disassociated with the article. See this is the problem - A book that only mentions the conspiracy theories a little is no good because it mentions it in a small amount - yet at the same time people are saying a full book on the topic is undue weight? Cant have it both ways. So again people are saying if a book mentions a conspiracy in a small amount its undue weight - just as a whole book on the topic is? This would be a curricular argument that no academic community would fine reasonable.Moxy (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) The article certainly manages to give less space and/or prominence to conspiracy theories than the literature. But how does it achieve that, Tom? In a 157KB article with over 8000 words of readable prose, how many links or words are spent on the issue? Is that about right, a reasonable balance, due weight, in your view? Geometry guy22:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To take the example I mentioned above, The Looming Tower, in 480 pages, says nothing about the conspiracy theories. Other books about 9/11 similarly give the little if any converage. These theories are heavily promoted online and on Wikipedia, and people get a mistaken view of their actual significance, which is minimal. We present them with about the weight other works about the September 11 attacks give them - essentially nil. That's the correct balance, in line with due weight and the literature. Tom HarrisonTalk23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A LexisNexis search brings up 477 print newspaper articles covering the subject; it's a false dichotomy to divide things into "books" and "online stuff". (if you want me to send you the news articles, drop me an email so I know your email address, and I'm happy to attach choice pieces). Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Looming Tower is a poor example: "Because The Looming Tower is to a large extent focused on telling the story of the people involved it does not actually describe the 9/11 plot and its execution in much detail." MalleusFatuorum23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Thanks for the quick partial answer Tom. By providing no links and not a single word, the present article effectively pretends that conspiracy theories do not exist. Do you believe that is an appropriate balance, reflecting the facts etc.? Geometry guy23:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I had answered, but left out a word, now added. The article doesn't pretend conspiracy theories don't exist any more than it pretends there's no such person as Mychal Judge. We give the conspiracy theories the coverage due weight demands for this article, just as we give Father Judge the due weight he should have. Tom HarrisonTalk23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to the fact that the article does not mention Mychal Judge, an individual who died in the attack. It is interesting that you consider this a relevant comparison.
We are writing an encyclopedia article here, which should address the questions which readers coming to the article are likely to be asking. Do you believe that conspiracy theories have so little relevance to this encyclopedia article, that readers should not be linked to a single one of the many articles we have on these subjects? Geometry guy00:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I answered yours, now let me ask you one. Is there any evidence or argument that could convince you the article as it is now gives due weight to the conspiracy theories? Tom HarrisonTalk00:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the above question. The article gives weight zero to discussion or even the existence of discussion questioning the canonical analysis/history of events presented in the article. Zero is an absolute position. I am not asking you to convince me personally of your "zero weight" stance. I'm asking whether you believe "zero weight" is due weight for an encyclopedia article on a topic for a global audience who come to the article with multiple views. I'm giving you the opportunity to justify that belief, as it has been challenged by editors, who have pointed to other Wikipedia articles and reliable sources discussing much omitted information.
Perhaps another question would be easier. I am sympathetic with the view that all these challenges to the canonical history are misguided/wrong/irrelevant, and that wikipedia should not lend credence to conspiracy or fringe theories. Do you really believe that the best, most encyclopedic, way to do so is to avoid referring to the existence of the discussion, or even to suppress all mention of criticisms of the canonical view which might support any such theory? If so, why? I can understand that once the article admits mention of alternative views, they could become magnets for trolls, and it will be difficult to draw or hold the line between encyclopedic information and speculation. Is that the concern?
There's a huge gulf between "not lending credence to" and "ignoring" alternative views, and the latter is an extreme position that is often counterproductive. If you can convince me that "I didn't hear that" is the way to deal with the disagreement and controversy in this case, that I am wrong in believing that an encyclopedia should provide information to inform the reader and let them /decide for themselves, then I will have no further questions. Geometry guy01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered this a couple of times above. Here it is one last time: We present them with about the weight other works about the September 11 attacks give them - essentially nil. That's the correct balance, in line with due weight and the literature. That isn't suppressing anything, or pretending anything doesn't exist, that's presenting them with due weight - zero, in this particular article. Tom HarrisonTalk12:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But "essentially nil" is not the same as "nil", Tom. You are boldly asserting that "zero" is due weight, yet in the case you make for this, you cannot even assert that reliable sources contain no coverage of criticism of the conventional view. Indeed, you gave just one example of such a book, and it is not the kind of book which would address such material. A book on "Early History of Christianity" is not going to discuss child abuse allegations in the Roman Catholic Church. The "fact" is that there is nonzero coverage of critical views in the literature, and by asserting that "nonzero=zero", you have just failed Calculus 101. Geometry guy12:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article were four times as long as it is, some mention of the conspiracy theories would be appropriate. As it is, the least we could put in, say a sentence in Health effects, would be over-weighting. A link in See also without any context would be even more over-weighted. We link to pages that link to 9/11 conspiracy theories - Rumors about September 11, I think. Everyone wants to stuff their pet idea into the top-level article, even if that isn't the weighting given it in the literature. That leads to the over-weighting of fringe views that's so common on the wiki. Hierarchical presentation with summary style is the best we can do. So I guess adding information to an article is a discrete process, not a continuous one, but I'll defer to you on that. Tom HarrisonTalk13:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tom, for finally stating your position in a way that makes some sense, to me at least. Even if others disagree with it, quantifying and giving reasoning for your view provides a basis for positive discussion. I would suggest, though, that attributing patronizing motives ("stuff their pet idea") to other editors reveals more about yourself than it advances such discourse. That aside, I take your point that information comes in nuggets, and also note your opinion that the information others are wanting to add amounts to 1/4 nuggets in the context of the current article size (I am not saying I agree with that assessment). However, in order for hierarchical presentation and summary style to work, in order to provide breadth and continuity of coverage and build the web, it is often necessary to round up those nuggets, rather than round them down to nothing.
I note that the article indeed links to Rumors about the September 11 attacks in the Navbox at the bottom of the page (and only there). The latter article is in a pretty poor state (and could even be considered OR in its present form). That is not a good way to provide readers with the best access to material that they want (and indeed often need) to be informed about. Geometry guy14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles which discuss the conspiracy theories...this one discusses the facts. It's a disservice to provide "equal time" to a subject that the factual literature by eyewitness accounts, engineers, scientists, aviation experts, emergency responders and government officials all over the world pay no heed to. The WP:UNDUE clause of NPOV is clear....
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary 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."...in other words, since this topic of alternative or conspiracy theories is not in peer reviewed authoritative sources, we would be violating UNDUE.--MONGO02:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here is suggesting we have equal time giving to the nutjobs. What we're suggesting is that you mention the nutjobs. There's literally no mention of the conspiracy theories; if someone utterly ignorant of the events was to read the Wikipedia article, they would walk away from this with no knowledge that the conclusions of the various commissions have ever been questioned. Even the "see also" section excludes a single damn link to the appropriate page. Ironholds (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say that it is inappropriate to cover this subject without peer-reviewed, scientific literature (as opposed to say, newspapers). Most of the existing article is sourced to newspapers. Is there some magical way in which newspapers are inappropriate sources when it comes to including stuff you don't like and appropriate sources when it comes to including things you do? And, in a further questioning tone - if you want scientific coverage, would a dedicated Popular Mechanics edition work as a source? Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fails on 1a (it is not well-written, there are loads of clumsy constructions and flabby writing). Fails on 2b (unsourced or poorly sourced statements, preponderance of web-based and primary sources over book sources for an event 10 years ago is not acceptable). Fails on 3b (much extraneous detail makes it a hard read). Fails on 4, as it does not adequately or neutrally portray the subject. Local consensus is that the correct description of "conspiracy theories" is zero description.
The local consensus seems to be that "conspiracy theories" include anything that they think contradicts, criticizes or undermines the party line. This is a sample of the party line on the talk page. Although I was able to present excellent book sources to support a suggested edit regarding the least controversial addition (the non-appearance of the world's biggest air force), my suggestion was not implemented and I was called a CTer and a POV-pusher in article talk. I have since given up any attempt to help improve the article as I started to do following the recent unsuccessful FA attempt.
The article is turgid and one-sided, and the toxic atmosphere in the talk page precludes any possibility of improving it to Wikipedia's standards. There are many non-trivial sources at this talk section, including the BBC and two very respectable book sources, and to interpret WP:UNDUE so as to exclude such reliable sources has been a local consensus enacted in good faith to keep the peace, but it leaves the article outwith our standards of neutrality. To discuss (briefly) the various controversies about 9/11 as they are described in reliable sources, should not be beyond the scope of this article. Let me emphasize that this is not just about crackpot theories but areas that have been the subject of considerable commentary like the war in Afghanistan after October 2001, which is not mentioned again except the bland "Conflict in Afghanistan between the Taliban insurgency and the ISAF is ongoing", or the weird mention of "At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement." without further mention of the war in Iraq. These two wars together have caused untold thousands of deaths and $1.25tn US expenditure; aren't they worth a joined up discussion? There are lots of examples like this that would take constructive discourse and lots of work to fix, but the willingness isn't currently there, sadly. --John (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scores of editors showed willingness to make amends with regards to our policies and guidelines. Not acceptable. Easily recognizable group of individuals enjoyed and deployed double standards for a very long time. No concessions should be made, if someone is gaming the system, administrate should act accordingly. What we have here is long, well recorded history of editors who abuse their privileges, we have seen them indulge in disruption, wikilawyering, pettifogging.., or plain harassment. Deal with it. DeifactedNethicite (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 the viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
If the viewpoint is held by a significant minority of historians, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
If the 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 ancillary article.
The fact is that there is no debate within mainstream historian community over whether the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorists or the US government/Jews/Aliens from outer space/etc. None whatsoever. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't need to rely on What Jimbo Said 8 years ago: he is quoted at WP:UNDUE, which provides an up-to-date elaboration of these principles. It does so without your emphasis or insertion of the phrase "of historians". MONGO has already quoted the passage during this reassessment (albeit without attribution to Jimbo). The issue here is not primarily about credibility, but notability. Geometry guy19:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Jimbo's e-mail because it goes into more depth, but either way, the principles are the same and are still part of WP:UNDUE today. I added the emphasis to help illustrate the logical conclusion of applying policy in this situation: crank theories don't belong in our article on 9/11 but may be acceptable in an ancillary article. And we have such an article: 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, we have lots articles about or related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. But it doesn't belong here. (P.S. I'm not sure if this point was important to you, but in case it is, I want to address it. IIRC, Jimbo used the word 'scientists' in his e-mail because they were discussing some crank scientific theory. Since we're discussing history, not science, I changed 'scientist' to 'historian'.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for making this point clear. The remarks partially quoted in WP:UNDUE were originally made in the context of scientific material, but are being applied here to historical material. This is one reason why care is needed when Wikilawyering, because it happens a lot that a guideline or principle developed with one context in mind gets used in others (WP:FRINGE contains further examples). It isn't necessarily wrong to do so, but neither is it a purely logical conclusion: some thought and judgment is needed on how relevant and helpful the principle is in the context and for the issue at hand. Geometry guy21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be wise to shut this down until 7 days from today. On the tenth anniversary of something this huge things are too tense to discuss this with clarity and without bias. --Guerillero | My Talk19:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually discussion has been more productive today than it was earlier in the reassessment. I've seen comment made elsewhere about the timing of the reassessment. I have no problem with it. Geometry guy19:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preface to Reassessment Comments. Good article reassessment aims to determine whether an article meets the GA criteria or not. For articles such as this, on emotive contemporary topics attracting conflicting viewpoints and controversy, it is widely acknowledged that simultaneously achieving (and maintaining) readability, factual accuracy, breadth, neutrality and stability is very difficult. I compliment editors on bringing the article to its present state of maturity.
This reassessment is a difficult one. The tension has been (alas disappointingly) evident in unnecessary personal comments, bad faith accusations and misinterpretations. References to a toxic talk page, point of view pushing, pettiness and intimidation are inappropriate and completely irrelevant to the reassessment discussion; they may well have been removed or refactored to the reassessment talk page in other circumstances. There have also been statements and restatements of a position with little by way of communicating the justification, reasoning or good faith motives behind them.
However, in an article under constant bombardment, I can understand both a siege mentality and frustration this may generate in response. The article has reached in impasse, and it seems to me that this reassessment, whatever its outcome, will serve no useful purpose unless it brings new thinking (on the part of all interested editors) to find common ground.
There have been several comments already by previously uninvolved editors, including experienced GA reviewer HJ Mitchell. In my own comments, I shall try to give as much explanation as possible, in the hope that anyone willing to read them might get something useful out of them, even where they disagree. Geometry guy00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessment comments 1. Although reassessment involves checking an article against all of the GA criteria, the case for reassessment is based largely on broadness and neutrality concerns - specifically that the article contains little criticism of, or contrary views about, the widely accepted analysis of historical events, as described by US government and most other reliable sources. Many of these contrary views are frequently described as "conspiracy theories" and some are discussed extensively in other articles on Wikipedia.
The present article does not even refer to the existence of such "conspiracy theories", and this is by far the most obvious "broadness" concern. Without addressing this issue, any discussion of individual conspiracy theories, criticisms or contrary views is almost impossible. In seeking cogent arguments for such a position in this reassessment, I found the following.
"We have a plethora of 9/11 related pages dedicated to" / "There are articles which discuss" "conspiracy theories"... "This one should be dedicated to" / "discuss" "the facts" (my bolding).
With an apology to the editor involved for any embarrassment, I find this apparent understanding of Wikipedia rather bizarre, and have to get it out of way first. All Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate (and verifiably so!): there is no contrast between articles which discuss "the facts" and those which do not, as all articles should. Wikipedia makes articles factually accurate by attributing opinion to those who hold that opinion. Speculation and opinion are not facts, but the information that someone, some collective, some organisation has expressed a particular opinion is a fact.
There are some facts which nearly every reader believes, and these facts often do not need citation or attribution. However, the idea that this article concerns only such "facts" is evidently nonsense. In much of history, nobody knows for sure exactly what "actually" happened (on the planes, in the towers, within the government in this case), so the best historians can do is construct a narrative consistent with the evidence. The article reports the most widely accepted narrative and cites it accordingly. It contains plenty of speculation and opinion, but when it does, it attributes it, so that it is reporting a fact about an opinion.
WP:ONEWAY. I'm impressed here by the traction an acronym has gained over common sense. One look at the guideline should tell any intelligent editor about the consensus it summarizes. It is clearly motivated by a scientific context, and articulates the view that an obscure theory on a topic should link back to the mainstream theory, but that the mainstream theory need not link to the obscure theory. The evident concern is that the backlink might advertise a theory that is utterly irrelevant to readers of the mainstream article.
The examples make the point even more plain. It is appropriate for Astronomy to refer to Astrology (and not just vice versa) because the connection between the two is widely discussed. The example given for a one-way link is Autodynamics, which no reader of Special relativity would want to know about. Those quoting WP:ONEWAY are saying that they believe that connection between this article and e.g., 9/11 conspiracy theories is about as obscure as Autodynamics in Special Relativity, more obscure even that the link between Astrology and Astronomy.
This provides no case that it is inappropriate, or a coatrack, to provide a link to obviously related articles (where the clue is in the name)...
...nor does WP:COATRACK - an essay - provide any examples remotely like those being considered here.
WP:UNDUE. In my view, the most credible argument for the position taken by the current article is one of due/undue weight, which is why I have encouraged the most articulate proponent of this position to make the case for it. This is where there is most ground for intelligent discussion and compromise, from which ground my reassessment comments will continue.
Geometry guy: I disagree with your assessment of WP:ONEWAY on so many levels, I'm not sure where to begin. I need to get to bed soon, so I'm just going to type whatever comes to me off the top of my head and hopefully it makes some degree of sense.
First, I get the distinct impression that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were originally written to address problems dealing with scientific articles and have been expanded to cover other academic disciples. Jimbo's e-mail, for example, was about a fringe scientific theory. The principles were then applied to NPOV with the word 'scientist' dropped. You'll note that the current wording of WP:VALID (part of NPOV) doesn't say 'science'. Instead, it uses the phrases "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship", "accepted academic scholarship" and "established scholarship". Some of the wording of WP:FRINGE refers to scientific issues but also states that other examples of fringe theories include conspiracy theories. One of the examples of a fringe theory it gives is Paul is dead which has nothing to do with science. Regardless of the history of how these policies and guidelines arrived at their current state or why the wording is inconsistent, I believe that all of these policies and guidelines apply to all academic disciplines, and not just scientific ones.
Second, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:ONEWAY (and even WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK, etc.) all address basically the same problem: how to solve POV disputes. They all pretty much give the same answer, albeit in different ways.
Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We present and focus on the majority viewpoint among experts/scholars in a given field.
Where there is disagreement between scholars/experts, we describe the debate without taking sides. How much space we devote to this debate is addressed by UNDUE.
If the disagreement is held by a tiny minority of scholars, or by non-experts (politicians, lay people, scholars commenting on fields outside their area of expertise, etc.), they can either be omitted, mentioned in limited fashion or delegated to some ancillary article.
NPOV describes this in general. FRINGE and ONEWAY focus on the third category. UNDUE gives a crazy, unworkable formula (but that's a rant for another day) for determining how much space is devoted to majority, significant minority and fringe viewpoints.
Third, just because WP:ONEWAY uses astrology and autodynamics as examples doesn't mean it only applies to scientific articles. Again, the beginning of FRINGE explains that the guideline applies to conspiracy theories and there are other examples in other parts of the guideline that are not scientific.
Fourth, just because WP:ONEWAY uses a really obvious case where there is a two-way connection and a really obvious case of where there is a one-way connection doesn't mean that all cases will be as clear cut. This is fairly typical writing where you have to reach consensus, it's a lot easier to choose easy examples than difficult ones.
NOTE: In this post, I'm using the terms expert/scholar/academic interchangably. In reality, the situation is slightly more complicated and explained in WP:V and again in WP:RS where the list of acceptable sources includes publications with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and/or editorial control.
Thanks, and I'm sorry if you lost some sleep arguing against a position I do not hold! I did not say WP:ONEWAY applies only to scientific articles, nor is the rest of WP:FRINGE so restricted. To believe that it does - in the face of what is written there to the contrary - would be stupid. And I am not stupid :)
I only said that WP:ONEWAY is clearly motivated by a scientific context and I'll return to that in a moment. First, let me note that your "distinct impression", while interesting, is not borne out by the edit history of WP:NPOV. The quote from Jimbo's email was added to WP:NPOV in 2005 with no mention of science. The policy had already been going for over 3 years, and the thorniest NPOV issues were then, as now, political or religious more than scientific (Saddam Hussain, abortion etc.). WP:VALID has an interesting history: some of the text goes right back to 2001. It spent some time under "objections and clarifications", which was moved out to WP:NPOV/FAQ in 2006, and only made it back to WP:NPOV relatively recently, in 2009. It was briefly copyedited out of existence in early 2010, and only got its current "scholarship" gloss in October 2010. Anyway, there's still a copy at the FAQ, which still gives Holocaust denial as an example.
That's mostly an aside, but to understand what guidelines are for, it helps to understand where they come from. They generally develop and evolve to summarize pre-existing consensus on an issue so that the same discussions do not have be rehashed on every article talk page, every time they arise. They reflect and articulate consensus, and thus inform it, but they do not determine it. Unfortunately, they often get used as sticks to brow-beat opposing views into submission or bypass communication and thought.
That WP:NPOV et al. exist "to solve POV disputes" is not a helpful way to look at them for several reasons.
It feeds into the battleground mentality that says "my application of guideline X trumps your application of guideline Y".
At a higher level, these guidelines exist to help us all to write better articles and hence improve the encyclopedia.
At a more specific level, there is no POV dispute here! Nobody here has made a case that a 9/11 conspiracy theory should be presented as a legitimate alternative to the widely accepted historical analysis of events found in almost all reliable sources. A constant theme in this discussion has been the confusion between the notability and credibility of a viewpoint.
Now back to WP:ONEWAY. For a guideline to be helpful, you need to understand what consensus it is articulating. Even if other editors are unfamiliar with the guideline it will be useless in convincing others of your position unless it is clear why the guideline supports that position. Special relativity does not say "see autodynamics for a historically uninteresting and discredited alternative theory". It is trivial to translate that example to other contexts: Ape does not say "see Bigfoot for an example of a fictitious ape-like creature". In contrast, two-way "can and should" links are not limited to Astronomy and Astrology, but include:
I agree that there is gray area in the middle, so you can use WP:ONEWAY as an argument if you like ("The guideline says that sometimes links should be provided both ways, sometimes only one way, and I assert that it is the one way case that applies here"), but it is a feeble, flimsy argument, and if you need to rely on it to support your position (I'm not saying you do!), then I find that position untenable. Geometry guy20:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you're not saying that WP:ONEWAY only applies to scientific theories, then that's fine.
I only said it was my impression. I'll accept on good faith that the dates and links you provided are accurate.
Regarding the bit about "see autodynamics for a historically uninteresting and discredited alternative theory" and "Ape does not say "see Bigfoot for an example of a fictitious ape-like creature", I'm afraid that you lost me. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Regarding the example articles (Holocaust and Holocaust denial, etc.). None of those are necessily good examples to follow because they are not at WP:FA or even WP:GA. However, another editor in a different discussion has provided examples which are FAs.[3]
Nice parody and my apologies for being insufficiently clear in a couple of places. Let me try to clarify for you.
It doesn't make much sense to describe a guideline as flimsy or weak, and I did not do that: I stated (with justification) my view that an argument based on WP:ONEWAY is a weak one here. I'm doing the opposite of ignoring guidelines: I'm paying careful attention to precisely what they say and how they might help to inform the question at hand. By asserting that WP:ONEWAY, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are "basically saying the exact same thing", you are failing to do so. WP:ONEWAY concerns a very specific issue, WP:NPOV a general one, and WP:UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV. These three guidelines self-evidently do not say the same thing.
I appreciate the confidence you have in GA and FA, but all articles have editors whose consensus is reflected in the state of the articles they edit. It is fashionable to dismiss such consensus as "other stuff exists". I am not doing that, and this is an important point: I am not simply giving Holocaust et al. as examples of articles which do provide links both ways - I am saying that they should. They are exemplars of the consensus WP:ONEWAY is articulating, and could be given as further examples there. (Note that Astrology, Special relativity and autodynamics are not GA or FA either.)
WP:ONEWAY gives only one example where a link should only be provided one way: autodynamics. In order to extrapolate, I think it is helpful to imagine a link in the "wrong" direction, and what it would effectively be saying ("see autodynamics for a historically uninteresting and discredited alternative theory" was my attempt to do that). This makes it clear why a link from Special relativity to autodynamics is a stupid idea. I then thought up a non-scientific example where a link in the wrong direction makes no sense: Bigfoot is a fictitious example of an ape-like creature (and links to ape), but it would be nonsense to provide a link in the other direction (from ape to Bigfoot). In contrast, examples such as Holocaust denial extrapolate from the other end, where it is appropriate to provide two-way links.
By continuing such extrapolation from both ends, it is possible to have an intelligent discussion about the middle ground. Individual editors will inevitably disagree about where the lines are drawn, but I see no case that WP:ONEWAY argues for exclusion of a link here: if at all, the consensus it is articulating leans in the opposite direction. Geometry guy23:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite simply without mentioning the conspiracy theories it fails criteria 3a. Requests for comment, talk page consensus and the rest are irrelevant as to whether this is a good article. I don't think it needs much of a mention and it should definitely be presented neutrally, but IMO it does need to be mentioned for the article to retain its status. AIRcorn(talk)08:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly torn on this because I think to some extent both sides are right. In general, reliable sources do not seem to discuss the conspiracy theories (CTs) when they are talking about the attacks. The CTs are discussed, but often independently (e.g. this is on the BBC website, but there doesn't seem to be a mention of conspiracies in the rest of the many stories about the event and aftermath). In technical terms, I have not seen any reputable structural engineering sources give any credence to any of the various alternative theories. However, there is no doubt that CTs are a notable aspect of the responses. There have been many articles discussing CTs over the last few days and weeks, and I do not see the same total isolation between the official explanation and the CTs that we now have here. Even the fact that the wikipedia article does not mention the CTs has made it into the press ([4]). The other principle I would look to is that of least surprise. I was surprised to find that this article did not even mention CTs, and I would suspect most readers would be too (as this GAR may be evidence of). This article is an overview of the whole subject of 9/11, and unfortunately (in my opinion) that does include the CTs. The same should also apply to the navigation template. Polequant (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{Edit conflict} The GA criteria does not require complete coverage. Instead, it requires broad coverage. We're writing an article here, not a book. It is simply not possible to cover every minor aspect of a topic within the confines of a single article. The GA criteria only requires that we address the main aspects of the topic. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not a main aspect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Tom has already pointed out that in the 480 page book, The Looming Tower, there is nothing about conspiracy theories. The 567 page book, 9/11 Commission Report does not contain a single mention of conspiracy theories. If it was a main aspect, then why the dearth of coverage in secondary, reliable sources? What's more, if we did include in the article, then the article would fail GA criteria 4 by giving undue weight to fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I feel the conspiracies fall under the broad criteria with the amount of press they have received. It is even in the New York times. [5] It can be presented without going into undue territory and doesn’t really need to be very big. ‘’Evolution’’ has a section on social and cultural responses, while ‘’global warming’’ has a large views section, so it is possible. Some editors will be looking for information on the theories and there should be a way for them to find it from this article. AIRcorn(talk)11:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wrong metric. First off, let me smack myself for even commenting here; I promised myself I would try to stay out of this.
AQFK: The book you cite is a bad example. From our article on it, it is a "historical look at the way in which Al-Qaeda came into being, the background for various terrorist attacks and how they were investigated, and the events that led to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on the United States." The 9/11 Commission report, having no real independence from the government of the United States, is similarly a poor example.
No one is pretending that newspapers and scholars do not cover 9/11 conspiracy theories. The issue is that there is an enormous amount of material about the events of 9/11, and we have to pick and choose what is best to include I think the question that should be answered is this: if there were a publication published by your favorite scholarly press devoted to recapping the attacks from the perspective of someone who didn't remember much about them, how much space, proportionately, would be given to the conspiracy theories? I have my own opinion, but I'll let you all hash it out. But if you can find a book or five that more closely matches the description of the hypothetical book that I gave, that would make this a whole lot easier. NW(Talk)13:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn: I don't think those are apples-to-apples comparisons. In the case of evolution versus creationism, creationism was the mainstream viewpoint (at least in Western civilizations) for hundreds of years. When Darwin's theory of evolution was proposed, it had a deep and profound impact on society. It changed the way we viewed ourselves and our origins. Landmark court cases were fought over the issue. Entire religions were changed as a result. Even today, creationism versus evolution remains a perennial issue in US presidential elections. 9/11 conspiracy theories have had no similar impact. It's never been a mainstream viewpoint, it's never been the subject of a landmark court case, it's never caused a religion to be changed, etc....
A better comparison would be Barack Obama and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. (In fact, the term 'birther' comes from 'truther'.) If you check out our Obama article, you'll see that it contains no mention of the birther POV yet it's featured article. In fact, the Obama article has passed multiple FA reviews and it's never been rejected because it omitted the birther POV. And that's for an FA review where the requirements are supposed to be stricter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a good comparison; the examples were meant to indicate that undue could be overcome. I am not from the USA and have only heard "birther" from Wikipedia. The other day there was a radio segment devoted to (mainly debunking) the conspiracy theories. A simple sentence or two in a suitable section acknowledging their existence and even saying that they are debunked would probably be enough for me. AIRcorn(talk)00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, comparaison n'est pas raison. I too would be happy with a single well-sourced sentence debunking the classic conspiracy theories. It's extremely difficult for me to understand why editors will go through such contortions to avoid having this in the article. --John (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NW - I'm sure you know it is incumbent upon those wishing to add this type of controversial material to the article to provide sources dealing with the attacks themselves that conform to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and that link CTs to the attacks in a "serious and prominent way". In the previous RfCs and discussions, inclusionists were asked time and time again to provide such sources, sources like the scholarly kind you describe, but all they could come up with were sources dealing with the conspiracy theories themselves. I can't recall even one such scholarly, scientific, official, or historical RS about the attacks being presented that also linked CTs in a "serious and prominent way", or any way at all for that matter. If inclusionists can find a book or five that more closely matches the description of the hypothetical book that you gave that did give space to CTs, that would make this a whole lot easier for them, wouldn't it? We don't see that happening though, do we? If the inclusionists can present such sources, let's see them. Otherwise, the consensus should stand. Shirtwaist☎19:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80 percent of this article is made up of non- scholarly and scientific references. And many many (100s) refs have been provide, however they have all been rejected - with the reasoning that because they talk about CT they must be unreliable or hold to much weight. To simply dismiss all refs because of this affiliation is wrong. This article should be about "September 11 attacks overall" that is all aspects should be confronted. When reading books about this topics (ones they now utilizes in University) CT is given the weight that is due. That is not much but there is recognition of them. Just looks like the arcile is incomplete and unbalanced. What we should be doing is approaching the subject in a direct manner - as has been done on book about the topic that millions of people are reading. I have read many many a book on this topic and to say that CT is not covered is simply wrong. CTs are all BS but that does not mean they should be eliminated from this article because some are afraid of the topic. We should be confronting this topic not ruining away from it. Bellow are some examples of how "REAL" authors deal with the situation (Note not one is siding with the CT-ers). The 9/11 Commission report talks about CTs (not this one - but the fact they are there in all forms - from many different times) and must be confronted and dealt with. To omit such info makes us look uninformed and unreliable. (Not even a link makes us look realy one sided - even if that side is the right one) Moxy (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to clarify what exactly this part of the discussion has been about rather than falling into the trap of using "CTs" or similar a a blanket description of all theories or commentary which goes outside or criticizes the official narrative. To perpetuate this practice would be to imply that there is no difference between theories involving nano-thermite, controlled demolition and the like, as published by fringe websites, and the BBC or the Guardian reporting on extraordinary rendition, the ongoing morass in Afghanistan, or the 9/11 Commission criticizing NORAD for its low state of readiness. This confusion, along with the confusion of credibility with notability that GG has mentioned, have been a large part of the problem with the article and we should not continue it if we wish to improve the article or even make a fair-minded assessment of how good it is in its present state. --John (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we confront the problem as they have done in the books above (pages listed). They mention them and the lack of credibility that they have produced - we here on Wikipedia are simply omitting them as if they are not talk about in the real world. Lets confront them and there credibility so that the article is about ALL aspects of the topic. Moxy (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessment comments 2. Having read all of the discussion here, I find that the most credible case for the position taken on contrary views in the article is due/undue weight. That this is the best ground for progress is further amplified by the current lack of clarity of purpose (or even position) behind the due/undue weight argument. The most basic question about giving due or undue weight is surely, "giving due or undue weight to what?"
As far as I can tell, the current answer is "conspiracy theories". Even accepting "conspiracy theories" as a vague umbrella for a multitude of sins, there is no clarity as to what it is about "conspiracy theories" that should not be given undue weight.
Indeed much of the discussion confuses the "existence", "notability" and "credibility" of conspiracy theories and other contrary views, as does the article talk FAQ. A parody of the current position is that "the article should not assert that conspiracy theories exist unless there are peer reviewed reliable secondary sources which assert that they are true". I hope no one actually holds that view, but the FAQ is by far from the only case here where arguments have been deployed out of their natural context. That's woolly thinking.
It is clear to all that the article should not lend credence to fringe accounts of 9/11. (Conspiracy theories et al. should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.) However, that isn't the same as omitting mention of their existence. Indeed, reliable sources don't just pretend such theories don't exist, but go further: far from legitimizing them, they discredit them. You cannot discredit a theory by ignoring it, so the question becomes instead: is the theory notable enough to discredit?
Questions like these cannot be answered by Wikilawyering. Selective quotation and application of guidelines can support many reasonable positions. WP:UNDUE can be used to argue that conspiracy theories should only appear in "some ancilliary article" (assuming one accepts that they are supported by an extremely small or vastly limited minority without prominent adherents), whereas WP:FRINGE suggests that notability for dedicated articles is a stronger requirement than for inclusion in a strongly related one.
They can only be answered by considering what is the purpose of Wikipedia, what is the purpose of the article, how any proposal contributes to these purposes, and what are the benefits and the hazards. This may involve taking an ideological position, but any such position can be tested or challenged in a given context (as inclusionism and deletionism are on a regular basis).
There is an ideological position behind the current status quo. It is that Wikipedia "overweights" fringe views compared to reliable sources. I'm not saying this position is "wrong", but its application requires consideration. Wikipedia also overweights articles on obscure topics and episodes of Family Guy.
My ideological position is different. Wikipedia is many things to many people. The most important thing is that our articles should provide readers with the information they need (which does not always coincide with the information they seek). Any well-informed person knows that 9/11 conspiracy theories are mostly nonsense. However, our readers are not always well-informed: indeed, that is quite likely their reason for consulting an encyclopedia! Readers of this article are reasonably likely to have a legitimate interest in conspiracy theories associated with it. An encyclopedia is never going to convince a die-hard conspiracy theorist that they are nuts. However, it can point a curious reader to good information, even if they come with ill-informed preconceptions.
You cannot simply tell someone that their position is wrong: you need to show them. Provide them with the information and the evidence, and trust them to make up their own mind. That is what WP:NPOV is all about. It informs my thinking about Wikipedia and I hope others will find it helpful. Geometry guy23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example. Before concluding my reassessment comments, I'd like to give an example and an exemplar. The example concerns an issue raised right at the start of this reassessment: why does an article on an air attack not address the failure of air defense to counter it? Well, the article does address this issue, but because of the way it approaches criticism and contrary views, it does so only in the paragraph of the first ("Attacks"/timeline) section beginning "Once it became known that Flight 11 had been hijacked..."
The entire paragraph is as scrambled and unclear as the pilots may have been about what was going on. The second sentence "NORAD had 9 minutes' notice that Flight 11 had been hijacked" is incomprehensible - notice of what? If Flight 11 hit the tower at 8:46, why is this relevant to planes which were only airborne at 8:53? (I know, but the reader doesn't.) "Poor communication" is mentioned next despite there being nearly an hour to go before the final crash. Then there are several sentences discussing the fighter response at 10:20 and beyond, when the four planes had already crashed. Multiple reliable sources are used in support of the statement that 10:20 was too late to intercept flights that had all crashed by 10:03. The final remark that "we wouldn't be heroes if we shot down those four planes" (paraphrase) is a complete nonsequitur: the pilots never had a chance even to consider shooting down one of the planes.
This paragraph is so confused because most of the material in it belongs in another section, answering the question: why didn't USAF shoot down the planes? In that context, it provides many cogent answers: they didn't know in time, and even if they did, shooting down a civilian airliner is not something to be taken lightly. Because there is no such section, this interesting material gets crammed in where it doesn't belong, and consequently enlightens noone. Geometry guy00:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exemplar. In commenting above, I was reminded of Holocaust denial, which is a great example of an article dealing with a conspiracy theory linked from the main article, The Holocaust. My comments here are slightly off-topic, as they concern the lead of the linked article, rather than the main article. Once upon a time that lead went... "Holocaust denial is the antisemitic conspiracy theory that the genocide of Jews during World War II did not occur..." (this is a paraphrase as the lead was unstable). I wouldn't argue with the truth of that statement, but it isn't encyclopedic, and the lead was a battlefield. It is of course, still a controversial topic, but the lead has been pretty stable since 2007, when a bunch of previously uninvolved editors advocated and provided NPOV wording (NB. NPOV is a point of view!).
Notice that although the current lead lends absolutely no credence to the idea that the Holocaust did not occur, it accurately describes the beliefs of Holocaust deniers. At no point, even in the last sentence, does the lead apply an editorial label in the unqualified narrative voice. Even a Holocaust denier would find it hard to argue that the lead is unfair in its representation. Yet, in my view, the lead is stunningly effective at conveying information. The label of "antisemitism" is far more convincing when placed in context and qualified at the end of the lead than it was as an unqualified and unjustified editorial assertion at the beginning.
This is what it means to confront a conspiracy theory, rather than try to side-step or marginalize it.
Sourcing comment. I forgot to comment that on looking at the source material for the article yesterday, I noticed that a substantial proportion focus on Al Qaeda or the attackers as their main topic. There is nothing wrong with that, per se, but such books are unlikely to discuss failings in the government response or other issues raised here. This may help to explain the disjunction of opinion between regular editors of the article and outside views. I see that the issue of sources has also been raised by Moxy above, and welcome further comments. Geometry guy01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to this portion of the conversation about sources. We have a double standard going on, with reference nitpicking. Firstly = looks like news publication are fine for references only when it come to mainstream views - meaning articles by news organization are only worthy of inclusion if the topics is deemed suitable (same sources but different inclusion out come). Secondly = Major books on the topic (excluding ones dedicated to the CT's) are being suppressed because of there content. The best example of a "double standard" as mentioned above is "Masterminds of Terror" were CT's are mentioned on pages 28 and 34, yet despite this fact people have been told its not a good source for CT's (We are using it as a ref for other things). The reasoning given for the exclusion of certain ref from the same source is undue weight (This I do question, how is it possible that its undue weight from the same source?).Moxy (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand - but how is it possible the ref mentions CT's but Wikipedia cant in this one article that is about this topic overall. How is that due weight. Does this sound like the ref is being used in a balanced way and to its full potential or is it just being used for its so called "good points"? What I am seeing is selective sourcing. Moxy (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't remember discussing Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist with you. Maybe we did, but I don't remember it. But I'll take another look at it....It's seems to be published by Mainstream Publishing which according to our article, is owned by Random House, a reputable publisher. The authors are Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, journalists working for mainstream news media. In absense of any evidence to the contrary, it looks like a good source to me. But how much weight does this book give to CT? According to a Google book search, it looks like 3 or 4 pages in a book that's 208 pages long. That's only about 1-2% coverage. To me, 1-2% is not significant coverage. If I were to base my opinion solely on this book, I would say that it would be undue weight to include CT in this article. Now if you want to examine other books by reputable publishers, we can aggegate them all together and see how much coverage CT are actually getting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea - Because 1-2% coverage is not much as you say but its way more then the current 0% coverage in this article. Moxy (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1-2% coverage would amount to 80-160 words in the present article (plus extra bytes for links, citations, etc.). That may be a sensible ball-park, but I don't think it is helpful to seek a percentage. In addition, aggregates of source material are problematic because sources overlap in coverage, and there is no clear way to weight the overlap. Arguments on including or excluding material are ultimately based on how much they improve the article, and need to be made on a case-by-case basis (an informal cost-benefit analysis if you like). Geometry guy23:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beginner's mind. As one new to both WP editing and the September 11 Attacks article, I offer this: having read nearly all of THIS page, I find it remarkable that so much energy is spent debating whether to MENTION conspiracy theories (other than the official one). With a couple of hundred links in the article, what great sin could be done by a link in 'See also' to the '9/11 conspiracy theories' article?! By taking the hardline 'zero weight' position, the owning editors (or whatever the proper jargon is) are accepting the official conspiracy theory as gospel. To have a gospel indicates that they know more about the tragedy than a few of the 9/11 Commissioners, several CIA veterans who have decades of experience each at the agency, a few congressmen, at least one senator, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission (who said, "The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened."), and many more http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html Perhaps these WP editors DO know more about the various theories than any of these people, but where are their credentials for such judgement? I agree with others here that to refuse to acknowledge that there is a controversy - thereby denying readers like myself who are looking for reasoned discussion of the controversy any information (and I suspect they are not few) - makes the article a bit laughable. Nonukes (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In no way should things not related to the September 11 attacks be included in this article. That means no conspiracy theories. They have nothing to do with the events on Sept 11 and they have been roundly dismissed. Just like we don't have Adam and Eve mentioned in the Big Bang article, we shouldn't have these nutters in the 9/11 article. It's a historical article on actual events, not the musings of disaffected flakes. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very many people (hundreds of millions) across the world don't entirely agree with the official US government explanation of the events that day. It is not for Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong, just to give appropriate weight to the arguments. But zero is no weight at all. MalleusFatuorum03:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a blind spot. Of course they have an argument, just not one you agree with. And you have no God-given right to suppress their argument. MalleusFatuorum04:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need one...we have Wikipedia policy instead. Appropriate weight is zero since it is false and has nothing to do with the event of the September 11 attacks. We write about what happened, not what didn't.--MONGO04:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what we believe, it only matters what reliable references provide to reference from. When talking about the CT's, there is not ONE reliable reference about controlled demolition of the towers, laser beams taking out the towers, or missles or the boogie man...none of the sources on such things is from peer reviewed scholarly sources, or cross referenced news sources, or from engineering sources...it all comes from self published, profiteering and/or dubious sources. The CT's exist does not mean they are worth of inclusion...in any form. As is done and as the NY Times piece stated, Wikipedia is an unlikely ally with mainstream...this is GREAT NEWS, not bad news since we want to be seen as reliable and not some miss-mash coatrack of indescriminate info.--MONGO05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent example, both of a good argument, and a good argument taken too far. The first sentence is a winner in almost any argument. However, the argument then goes on to mix credibility with notability, and so require that only certain sources are acceptable - even though this article relies on multiple sources that do not meet those criteria. Geometry guy00:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to MONGO) being false does not matter, do you dispute the fact that there are a number of persons who hold the view that something has been hidden ? and that fact has been reported on by reliable sources ? Mtking (edits) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK might be worth a read here, MONGO; we emphatically don't do that. A main article summarizes its daughter articles, it does not ignore them and we don't consign well-attested ideas we are uncomfortable with to another article, and then not even link to it. There is no policy-based, precedent-based or even common-sense-based argument for doing that. Why would we want to do it here? --John (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CT theories are not daughter articles of the 9/11 attacks page. They are daughter articles of the investigations. They are mentioned there. The overwhelming evidence supports this. I can make the claim that Thermite causes global warming. It doesn't mean I get to summarize Thermite on the Global Warming page. If more than the kook fringe support 9/11 CT, it might be reasonable to spam it across Wikipedia as the fringe wants but until then, WP:UNDUE rules. --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many people do not believe the earth is 5 billion years old, is round, or is not the center of the universe. Those views and the ridiculousness of the people that hold them have their place in Wikipedia where they can be exposed as flakes but we do not reference them in pages they think are relevant, we reference them in pages for where they make sense. This is not a content fork, as the conspiracy theories add no content to the historical event of 9/11 attacks. The appropriuate place for the CT reference is in the 9/11 Commission page. The 9/11 Commission page is referenced in the September 11 attacks. That is the appropriate level of inclusion. Referencing CT stuff on every 9/11 page is counterproductive and gives undue weight to the argument. It would be like having Flat Earth viewpoints on Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I'm sure the flat earthers think their views should be there, but we can see it doesn't belong. --DHeyward (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a curious misunderstanding. In fact the article on general relativity does include a brief discussion and a link to alternative theories of gravitation. Very many people across the world do not believe that the US government has been entirely open about the events of 9/11, and to ignore that reality is dishonest. MalleusFatuorum15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're alternative explanations of the facts, as are the so-called conspiracy theories; that you or I may not agree with them is neither here nor there. But the point you're missing is that flat Earth ideas have nothing to do with gravitation, therefore one wouldn't expect to find a link to flat Earth theories in an article on general relativity any more than you'd expect to find a link to Santa Claus. MalleusFatuorum16:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Malleus Fatuorum. The John F. Kennedy article includes a link to its conspiracy page (in the lede and without a citation mind you). Wikipedia has considered the inclusion of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article notable (including 299 Note references), so it is incredulous that this article shouldn't include a link to that article—even if that link is just in the "See also" section. To not inform our readers of the existence of the conspiracy page is a disservice as it takes away choice (and smacks of censorship). I support the removal of this page's GA status until this (and other issues) are resolved. GFHandel♬04:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And they learned. The 9/11 commission didn't open any door to CT stuff. That's the only reason for mention in Kennedy article as the official body investigating the assassination (HSCA) mentioned contradictory acoustical evidence. 9/11 commisssion did no such thing. And it is still WP:UNDUE in the Kennedy article to have it in the lede. --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, have you actually looked at Big Bang? Though it doesn't mention Adam and Eve by name, it does mention the conflict between that theory and those proposed by certain religious groups. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct about the issue with the acoustical evidence in the lede of the Kennedy article...it's barely covered in the reports. Before it's all over, the lede here will have to change as well, to accomodate "world view" that CT's are somehow an "alternative theory"....and thus, even though initial arguments were about how horrible the prose was and how bad the MOS issues were, in the end the truth was that some wanted to restore "balance" to the article by injecting it with fables about how the "worlds largest air force failed to act" (a common CT theme which I put to bed [6]) and soon up we'll have to go beyond SCOPE and add stuff about "kidnappings" and "torture" too....all so this article is a "GOOD" article.--MONGO04:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning theories does not mean giving any credence to them. If your argument is now "It's too hard to have anything NPOV about conspiracy theories so we'll just ignore them", well I'm afraid that we can't ignore something because it's difficult. If there is any hint of any credence being given to these theories then I will be first to oppose it being a GA. Polequant (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I've been away for a few days. One thing that strikes me about this discussion is about how it's evolved into a discussion mostly whether we should include a See Also link to CT. I think that policy is abundendently clear that we should not. But that's not the issue here. Let's say for the sake of argument that there should be a See Also link but there isn't. Is anyone seriously suggesting that WP:GA status should be stripped just because of a See Also link? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may attempt to distort the discussion as much as you wish, but the issue is the lack of any mention whatsoever of conspiracy theories, therefore this article clearly fails GA criterion 3a. MalleusFatuorum03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your original complaint was that the article had lousy prose...but now you seem to be mostly worried that the conspiracy theories aren't in the article. What amount of coverage do you think conspiracy theories warrant to satisfy WEIGHT?--MONGO04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at a discussion on my talkpage so I don't repost essentially the same longish comment here...the main WEIGHT comment is the longest in the thread....and the summary by Kiefer and my response at the end of the thread.--MONGO05:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you and others were discussing NORAD's activities during the attacks, which wasn't covered in the article...I added a paragraph regarding this (it was an oversight by the editors who worked on this article to not have that issue covered) in the events subheading under the Attacks heading...it's the 3-4th paragraph down.--MONGO05:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can't show that CTs are a main aspect of the 911 attacks, how can you say this article "clearly fails GA criterion 3a"? If you can't, the article does not fail GA 3a. Shirtwaist☎20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked if he could convince you, not if he could demonstrate the relevance of conspiracy theories to this topic. With logic like that I think you'd better stay at home. Parrotof Doom07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PoD - I think you should read up on this before pointing out logical fallacies that don't exist. Geez - do you really think "Can you persuade us" was some kind of rhetorical question aimed at MF's general debating skills?? I can assure you it was not. In response to his "Persuade me that (the article) does meet GA criterion 3a", I asked him directly to persuade us that it doesn't, by showing that conspiracy theories are a main aspect of the 911 attacks, and as such should be mentioned, as stipulated by GAC 3a. MF's ability to demonstrate that CTs are one of "the main aspects of the topic", as required in GAC 3a, and therefore the article fails on that basis, is dependent on his ability to persuade those who disagree with his opinion by making some kind of argument in favor of that position. That couldn't have been clearer. How about you? Do you think CTs are a main aspect of the article's topic? Shirtwaist☎11:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read your question exactly as you typed it, which suggests that either your grammar is poor, or you're dishonest. In answer to your question, yes, I do, and their omission from the article is a problem if its authors ever intend to get to FAC. Parrotof Doom15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MF seemed to understand my typing just fine. Maybe you should've ask him to explain it to you before embarrassing yourself. Shirtwaist☎06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "see also" discussion being carried out on the talk page is independant to this reassessment. While some editors might think that a see also link is enough to satisfy 3a, others might not. AIRcorn(talk)04:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn: Actually, it was originally suggested in the very first post of this page. The fact that some editors are arguing that a See Also link would suffice undermines the argument that CT are one of the main aspects of this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. CTs have little to nothing to do with the attacks, much less are they a "main aspect" of them. So much for 3a. Shirtwaist☎00:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying CT,s that have arisen about the attacks are not really related? The CT,s may be out-there in there views but to suggest they are unrelated our not discussed by a portion of the population is more far fetched then the CT,s themselves.Moxy (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying whether or not they are considered "related", or discussed (by very few people outside CT enthusiasts, IMO), they are clearly not a main aspect of the 911 attacks themselves. Are you saying they are? Shirtwaist☎05:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you claim is untrue AQFK. I made the first posting to this page, and I suggest that you might try reading it again, this time without any preconceptions. I said that CTs weren't even included in see also, not that I would be satisfied the article met GA criterion 3a if they were. MalleusFatuorum02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is untrue? I said that the See Also link was originally suggested in the very first post of this page: "conspiracy theories) are completely ignored, not even included in the See also section" - Malleus Fatuorum, 13:48, September 7, 2011 (initiating GA reassessment)[7] That was your post, wasn't it? In any case, can you please explain how CT are a main component of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your implication that I would be content with a see also listing was untrue. Your second question rather reveals your blind spot. Clearly the conspiracy theories aren't a component of the 9/11 attacks, but they most certainly are a conspicuous part of the public reaction to those attacks, and hence to ignore them is unacceptable for a GA. MalleusFatuorum03:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you would suggest it if you wouldn't be content with it. But no matter. My second question cuts the heart and soul of the issue here. WP:GAC does not require coverage be complete or even comprehensive. Instead, it requires that main components of the article topic not be omitted. Your last post seems to concede that CT are not a main component of the article topic (the 9/11 terrorist attacks).[8] If so, can you please withdraw this request? If not, then please explain how CT are a main component of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest it, I commented on it. Seems to me that a lot of the problems here are caused by editors like you not understanding what you're being told. MalleusFatuorum03:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much CT's should the article have to satisfy policy? I think that is a pretty straight forward question that has been posed numerous times. Is a link in the see also section enough, or should a paragraph be added to the body of the article, or should it have its own section?--MONGO09:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think if it were so obvious they should be included, it would be more clear how much should be included. The answer, I think, is just what the answer will always be: more. Tom HarrisonTalk12:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AQFK, it isn't helpful to focus on one of the many reviewers who have expressed disquiet over the completeness of this article's coverage. Neither is it helpful to focus on one area where the article, by consensus so far, fails to meet that criterion. Here is a nice example of an important and seemingly uncontroversial current failing, highlighted by GeometryGuy. Here is a non-exhaustive summary I made of areas the article needs to do better. Take a look at them both before imagining this is just about "CTs" or imagining that Malleus is the only opposer. Neither is true. --John (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section you mention which was commented on by GeometryGuy was a section I added in response to your complaint that the worlds largest air force failed to act on 9/11. They didn't fail to act...as clearly indicated by the refs. In what manner was the section to be written? I wrote it to fill a void about what the air defenses were doing. You are aware that after the end of the cold war, NORAD generally would keep only a dozen to 2 dozen full alert combat rapid response fighters on standby at a given time...the rest of the fleet is usually not in a rapid response mode, either not armed and/or fueled for immediate response. I get the impression that we needed an entire section to discuss this matter and that would be for what purpose?--MONGO22:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're not, and I don't believe anybody is saying that they are. What they are is a notable, verifiable set of views on what happened that differ from that offered by the US Government. To omit any mention of them is to suggest that the US Government's account is not just the most plausible, but the only account of what happened on 11 September 2001, and that is POV (contrary to core policy and GA criterion 4). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell: Nor do I believe that anyone is saying that CT are not a notable, verifiable set of views. Otherwise, the article on 9/11 Conspiracy theories wouldn't exist. But the issue here is whether our article on the September 11 attacks should be stripped of its Good article status. The main argument so far is that it fails 3a (whether it addresses the main aspects of the topic). If you reject this argument, then we are in agreement on this point. However, if you are arguing that it fails 4 (Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each), then I point out that most, if not all, articles also don't cover CT. Why should Wikipedia be out of step with reliable sources? IOW, on what basis, do you feel that CT aren't given due weight? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what John is referring to as issues the article doesn't cover...."To assist focused discussion towards improving the article, I thought I would sum up the outstanding issues as I see them.
Non-intervention of the USAF: Andrew Brookes, Destination Disaster (2002), ISBN0711028621, p84. "Marwan al-Shehhi on the flightdeck [of United 175] had learned enough in his training to turn off the transponder that enabled ground controllers to pinpoint the airliner's altitude and position. From now on, watchers on the ground would have to rely on raw radar returns. These were used to scramble two F-15 interceptors from Otis Air Force Base at 08.39hrs, but no one on the ground understood what was happening or what should be done. Even if they had put in full afterburners, the F-15 pilots could have done little because the first airliner was just six minutes' flying time from Manhattan." and David Gero, Aviation Disasters, 4th Edition (2006), ISBN0750931469, p328. "Although US military forces had been alerted about the hijackings, and two Air Force F-16 jet fighters were airborne in the area, no official authorisation to shoot down Flight 93 was given until the aircraft had crashed. (The question as to whether the 757 would have reached its target had those aboard not taken action on their own remained disturbingly unanswered in the report issued by a federal commission established to investigate the terrorist attack.)", CNN 2, (Many more at this archive) There are probably others, but those five are the main ones I am aware of. --John (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)"....in other words, fringe material that has little to nothing to do with the attacks themselves...a COATRACK is, according to John, the way to move forward with this article....according to him and GeometryGuy, unless we address the issues of ugh, conspiracy theories in regards to the U.A. air defense response during the attacks, we are biased! I wrote the section on the air defense but that was too, I suppose, apologetic. So, I now reworte it to show a more, the U.S. of A really screwed up kind of mind think. And lest we forget about the kidnappings and torture, nevermind the torture the people on the hijacked airlines endured, or the people who had to choose between flames/smoke or jumping...we don't detail that but we MUST detail the alleged stuff the U.S. of A did...--MONGO23:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO: It seems like a laundry list of POV edits about this article's topic. What I would like to see is some justification from those advocating for these changes, why they are necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if the arguments for inclusion could be based on something beyond the repeated assertion that it's simply obvious to all right-thinking poeple that cts should be included. There are many sources about the conspiracy theories. Few if any sources about the attacks present them as one of the main aspects of the attacks. Enlarging on the conspiracy theories gives them prominance that reliable sources about the attacks do not give them. Tom HarrisonTalk12:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just answered why = Few is not non - yet non is what we currently have. All seem to admit there are a few sources (some say lots) yet not one is in the article not even a link to an article with some. I dont think anyone is saying there a zero sourcesMoxy (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what I was asking was not "why" but "how much"? In an article four times as long as the present one, lots of things would be mentioned, including the conspiracy theories. In the article we have, how much mention is too much? Tom HarrisonTalk13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over my first comment above, it sounds harsh - sorry for that was not my intent -As for ... I think the talk above was headed in the right direction.Moxy (talk)
I didn't take it that way, so no problem. It looks like consensus in the current RfC is shaping up. I'll leave it to someone uninvolved to characterize that consensus and close the discussion on the article talk page when it's time. Then apparently if the major participants here like that consensus, they'll !vote accordingly. Tom HarrisonTalk17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be noted that there are reliable sources that say CT's regarding this event exist, but no reliable sources that say that any of the CT's are true. Hence, since the effort is to write an article based on the facts, we omit falshoods. The only way the CT's could be incorporated into the article is in the form of a rebuttal under a social/psychological after effects section. I think an editor at my talkpage summed up my view on this matter more succinctly than I could....here..."Because I oppose the inclusion of bizarre but popular falsehoods in the scientific articles, I suppose that consistency requires me to oppose the inclusion of bizarre slightly popular falsehoods in 9/11 and other articles on contentious issues."--MONGO17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for leaving this discussion alone for a few days. I was busy, and I also did not expect how long it would take me to complete my review: it was hard work! I'm sorry because many of the repeated arguments made above could actually lead to progress on the article rather than adding to the battleground effect. I encourage all editors to work together to make the article better. Geometry guy00:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessment comments 3 intro. So, does this article, in my view, meet the GA criteria? There are plenty of comments by reviewers here and editors at the the ongoing RfC, which might point to the simple conclusion "Does not make any reference at all to conspiracy theories, fails 3(a), delist". However I am not happy to conclude in such a way for multiple reasons.
The most fundamental of these is that it is not clear what that means. We should have good reasons for the things we do and the decisions we make on Wikipedia. There is much scope for editors to differ on which reasons are better, which arguments are more persuasive, but at the very least, an argument should be clear, so that all editors can understand what the argument actually is. In discussing whether the article should refer to conspiracy theories, we need to be clear about:
what kind of "reference" we are talking about;
what purpose does it have;
what is meant by "conspiracy theories";
what is it about doing this that is a good or bad idea;
and why?
Discussion is not much advanced by bald assertions in place of 1-4 and a policy quote for 5. I have already noted the distinction between the credibility and notability of conspiracy theories, and a reference can be supportive, comparative, critical, dismissive, or just a link. Confusing these distinctions is unhelpful. Even more unhelpful is the packaging, under the single pejorative label "conspiracy theory" (a blanket umbrella term) such a wide range as:
(@) Black ops (Israel, CIA, missiles instead of planes etc.); explosive demolition; criticism of the military response; arguments contrary to (and/or alleged evidence contradicting) the standard historiography; discussion of gaps in knowledge; criticism of government inquiries (and/or calls for "independent" analysis); sociology and prevalence of these beliefs.
Even if none of (@) belong in the article (for whatever purpose), the justification for exclusion is clearly not going to be the same in each case!
Some items, pretty much everyone agrees about. Concerning the rest, there have been several arguments, some clearer than others. Skipping over the difference between something and nothing or "fact" and "theory", the clearest seem to me to be about relevance/irrelevance and due/undue weight, or in different words, the balance of the article and coverage in reliable sources.
I've discussed already WP:ONEWAY, whose first sentence has been used in support of the position that none of (@) should even be mentioned or linked (for any reason). That's quite a sweeping conclusion considering the scope of the guideline (as clarified by the examples given and the context in WP:FRINGE). Discussing a particular fringe theory as an alternative to a mainstream one is quite different from mentioning that such theories exist or are widely believed. Others have noted problems with the word "mentioning" here, but the phrase "serious and prominent" may also be misleading, when it simply links to WP:UNDUE. The guideline concerns the discussion of fringe theories as alternatives to mainstream ones, and avoiding coatracks to fringe theories from topics where they are irrelevant. For the former issue, see Collapse of the World Trade Center, which describes in detail the mainstream explanation for the collapse. Quite correctly, and in accordance with WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE, it provides a couple of sentence (only!) on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. As in the Astronomy example, there are plenty of reliable sources here which discuss the controlled demolition hypothesis and how it has very little credibility compared to the mainstream analysis. Reliable sources similarly connect the September 11 attacks to many of the (@) topics above.
None of my comments mean WP:ONEWAY has nothing to say, far from it! Some editors have expressed concern about a "slippery slope". Well it is easy to slip if your heels are dug in, not so easy if your position is based on solid ground. The more that is sought with respect to inclusion of (@) stuff, the stronger the arguments against inclusion become. It would be absurd if the article said "At 8:46 a.m., five hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center... however, some authors have proposed that missiles could have been involved."! That's a fairly extreme example of the sort of material that we must exclude.
Even if material is appropriate for inclusion, that does not mean that it should be included. The principle that material should be selected according to its coverage in reliable sources is a powerful one. However, it needs to be used with care. There have been arguments made that only certain sources "count". I've noted already that a lot of the article sourced to books on Al Qaeda, for which (@) issues are off-topic. The argument that reliable sources do not discuss an issue starts to become circular if reliable sources which might discuss it are excluded.
I think editors agree that sources on conspiracy theories frequently discuss 9/11, and that this is an argument for their notability (this is why we have articles on such topics). This is not on its own an argument for including material in this article, because of balance, due weight, relevance etc., but it is part of an argument and should not simply be dismissed. Reliable sources demonstrating the relevance of (@) issues include government rebuttals and sources cited therein (Popular Mechanics etc.), as well as multiple news sources demonstrating the ongoing popularity and traction of these theories, and sociological analyses following from this.
The remaining strand of the due weight argument is that the above is not enough to justify inclusion. If the article were four times longer, it might be. That is a good argument, but it should be used on a case-by-case basis, and applied not only to (@) issues, but all the material in the article.
With that in mind, I will now complete my review. Beyond this GAR, other experienced editors have expressed their views. e.g. Cla68 and Carcaroth.
Reassessment comments 3 fin. My comments are based on this version, but the current version is similar, apart from one positive and one negative change since the version of the article prior to reassessment: the air defense issue has been moved and reworked, and an unencyclopedic plug for CNN archive material has been added. The following issues struck me as I read through the article (I mention relevant GA criteria in brackets).
A lot of the material in the article is structured in a chronological way, which is right for the events of the day, but not so good for the rest (immediate aftermath, milatary/domestic international aftermath, long term effects etc.). Ten years on, there should be enough analytical source material to be more thematic, and I believe such an approach would be more encyclopedic and less like a news source (1b).
Such an approach might also encourage more encyclopedic prose (1a). "Suspicion quickly fell" (from the lead) is in-the-moment writing. The future tense needs to be used with care, as we cannot predict what will happen: "A medical examiner, who will have a workspace at the site, will continue to try to identify remains, in the hope improved technology will allow them to identify other victims" is an unencyclopedic and unattributed prediction.
"Once it became evident to the hijackers that the passengers might regain control of the plane, one hijacker ordered another to roll the plane and intentionally crash it." This is sourced to the a transcript from the Flight 93 cockpit, a primary source. All I get from the primary source is that about 3 minutes before the crash, someone says (in English) "roll it". This does not support the analysis made in the article (2c). (There is also some repetition of the ultimate fate of Flight 93.)
There are a lot of statistics, especially in the Casualties section (3b). The number of employees lost within the second and third most affected companies seems like unnecessary detail to me. The breakdown by state isn't particularly surprising either.
"Mohammed confessed after waterboarding." The chronology here is misleading. He was interrogated in 2003, using waterboarding and confessed then. However, the quoted confession is from 2007, when the sources claim he was not under duress.
"At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..."
I was utterly taken aback by this opening to the "Military operations" section. Depending on one's political persuasion, this either makes Donald Rumsfeld out to be a callous political opportunist, or a cool-headed forward thinking all-American hero.
Such political tittle-tattle, based on a single primary source, may be good for news documentaries. Since when did this become encyclopedic content? It breaks pretty much every concern expressed about including (@) material.
Of course it is appropriate for the article to discuss how the attacks led to (and were used as justification for) war in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there is a sharp contrast between the blunt approach taken here, and the complete failure to discuss the support (proto) Al Qaeda received from the US when it was viewed as a force against communism in Afghanistan (3a,3b,4).
"While the government of Saudi Arabia officially condemned the attacks, privately many Saudis favored bin Laden's cause". This is a leading sentence, which singles out Saudi Arabia as a country where its citizens have different views from the government. All countries are like that, and an encyclopedia cannot cover what views are held "privately", because by their nature, they are private! (3b,4)
"Terrorist" and "terrorism" are labels, and WP:WTW cautions against using them in the unqualified editorial voice. I have no problem with the events of 9/11 being described as "terrorist attacks": they perfectly illustrate the definition, are self-described as such by Al Qaeda members, and are universally described as such in reliable sources. However, this does not give the article a free pass to use the label loosely.
"On September 26, 2005, the Spanish high court sentenced Abu Dahdah to 27 years in prison for conspiracy on the 9/11 attacks and being a member of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda."
Here "terrorist organization" is unnecessary, and even the source puts "terrorist" in quotes (4).
As an aside, "conspiracy theory" is also a label, which is used rather too readily in my view. For instance "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories is the conspiracy theory that..." effectively tells every reader who comes to the article wondering if there is any support for this theory that they are idiots. The role of an encyclopedia is to inform people, not marginalize them. Compare Holocaust denial which does not once state (in the editorial voice) that it is a conspiracy theory.
By skirting around criticism and contrary views, the Investigations section has problems with balance and prose. "The FBI was able to quickly identify the hijackers" is not an encyclopedic statement, even forgiving the unnecessary split infinitive: who defines what is "quick" (or correct). The case that fires were "sufficient" to bring the buildings down is a bit of a nonsequitur if no alternative views are mentioned. (4)
Health effects. This is a summary style section whose sources do not overlap at all with the rest of the article; furthermore, all bar one are news media. There certainly should be such a section, but why three long paragraphs? What is the justification. Why not also discuss psychological and sociological effects? (3a,b)
Final resting place. The title of this section is unencyclopedic, as it presumes a world view on what happens to the dead (cf. WP:WTW). It may also be affected by recentism: why should it be so long? (3b)
There are enough question marks here for me to conclude that the article likely fails several GA criteria including 1a,b, 2a/c, 3a, 3b, and 4. I conclude, therefore, that it should be delisted until these concerns are addressed. Geometry guy01:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you....lots of discussion here, no one else has provided as detailed an assessment/review. I have one question...you stated, "The case that fires were "sufficient" to bring the buildings down is a bit of a nonsequitur if no alternative views are mentioned."...what alternative views do you mean?...--MONGO03:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is it Mongo, this work that you do? And what sort of question is it, this question of yours? Is it sophism? Is it some new stage of denial, or is it treason to the reason? What sort of question is it? Honestly?!
You must be aware of ‘alternative views’, yes? We have whole god damn series of libel it as you label it articles about alternative views.
Fact is, some of the folks have, like vandals, graciously and belligerently, turned down hundreds of goodhearted, free minded contributors. Although administrate formulated remedies, it failed to administrate those, turning the core of this project into pitiful mockery. 9/11 article is locked for as long I can remember, it must be more than a few years since the talk page is under constant surveillance of thinkpol, 'protected' and denied from free minded citizens.
Face it, when it comes to 9/11 wikipedia is encyclopedia that few can edit, and that is the core issue.
My comments are all intended to raise questions and issues, not prescribe answers. The response is a matter for editorial discussion. I am not advocating including any particular views (which range from criticism of building design to explosive demolition claims) nor would I rule out mentioning them (without lending credence to them): the NIST report does, for example. However, the current section talks a lot about fires being sufficient to bring down 1,2 and 7 WTC. This focus is in part prompted by the initial disbelief and subsequent views that fires could not possibly have brought the buildings down alone. Simply noting that such views exist might be one way to address the apparent nonsequitur. Geometry guy12:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry Guy: Thank you for your feedback. But keep in mind that this isn't WP:PR or WP:FAR. In fact, I wish we had gotten this much feedback when we did submit it to peer-review! That a WP:GA can be improved is hardly surprising, otherwise it would be an WP:FA. In fact, I would bet that even FAs can be improved.
But I want to mention that I'm not sure that all the items you've identified are really issues. For example:
"This is sourced to the a transcript from the Flight 93 cockpit, a primary source. All I get from the primary source is that about 3 minutes before the crash, someone says (in English) "roll it". This does not support the analysis made in the article."
It doesn't need to. When I was reviewing the article, I noticed this as well. I thought about it and ultimately decided that there was nothing to fix. Here's why: WP:V does not require verification, only the ability to be verified if needed. That is to say, somewhere in the world there needs to be a source for this content. Personally, I never add anything to Wikipedia without citing a source that directly supports the content and I rarely, if ever, cite primary sources. But that's just me. So, I asked myself that if someone where to challenge it, is it possible to find a source for this. If the answer is yes, there's nothing to fix. I suppose I could have removed the primary source, but I don't see how that would improve the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree that the primary source should be kept: it adds interesting information to the article. However, without a secondary source, there could be OR here. The voice saying "roll it" could be one of the passengers breaking into the cockpit (there was one who was overheard saying "Let's roll" on a mobile wasn't there?) and the crash may have been a consequence of the struggle in the cockpit rather than deliberate ditching. Without a secondary source to support it, we cannot make either analysis in the article. Put it another way: I am hereby challenging the analysis :)
That aside, I repeat that (as with all reviews) my comments are intended raise questions, to which the answer may sometimes be "that's not a problem and here is why it isn't...". Certainly some of the issues may be asking too much at GA level, but I found sufficient concern to reach the conclusion I did. Geometry guy08:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, which has: "To stop the uprising, the terrorist piloting the aircraft began to roll it to the left and right, and pitch the nose up and down. In its final moments, the plane turned upside down as it passed over rural Western Pennsylvania. The terrorists remained in control of the plane and chose to crash it rather than risk the passengers and crew regaining control of the aircraft.". Minor differences between the analysis in the article and in the source therefore still need to be addressed.Geometry guy16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The original sentence was not factually accurate according to reliable sources, and you had to change the sentence to make it so. This violated the very first two bolded words of criterion 2. Geometry guy12:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you retrofit new sources onto existing content, minor tweaking is to be expected. I only spent a couple minutes looking for sources and that was the first that I found and I simply choose to address your concern with the least amount of effort. That doesn't mean that there's a problem with verifiability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to close. Having run for a couple of weeks, with several previously uninvolved reviewers commenting, I believe this reassessment is now ready to be closed. Unless further reviews are forthcoming, or someone beats me to it, I'm willing to do so in the next day or two. Geometry guy09:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree time to close this if noones has anything more to add - The article was delisted on the 19 - not sure this was done properly as we should close this first then delisted the article. To bad there has been no effort to try and fix the main problem .Moxy (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Community reassessment is not a vote. What matters is weight of argument as to whether the article meets all of the GA criteria or not (as I noted at the beginning of the reassessment): if even one criterion is not met according to editors reviewing the article, it should be delisted. That is what consensus means at GAR. Geometry guy16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the local definition of consensus is around here, but one opinion consensus does not make. Further, we're supposed to discuss the issues and attempt to come to agreement in good faith first. The vast, vast majority of this discussion has focused on CT and very little on anything else. In fact, the only other issue I looked at was the Flight 93 and that turned out not to be a problem. If you sincerely believe the other items you listed above are actual problems, I'm willing to go through them one at a time and if they turn out to be actual problems, we can fix them, delist the article or both. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help with the improvement of the article, but this will take several weeks and GAR is a summative assessment, not a bed for convalescing articles back to health. If the article is delisted, it can be renominated as soon as article editors believe it meets the criteria: there is no minimum time between nominations. Geometry guy08:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was the result of an RfC specifically about the link (which should never have been necessary), not the discussion here, which is about whether the article meets the GA criteria. You can believe what you like. Unfortunately, multiple reviewers (Malleus, HJ Mitchell, Aircorn,...) believe otherwise. More to the point, reasons have been given, not just bare assertions, in considerable detail in my case. Geometry guy12:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I would remind anyone considering closing this community assessment that WP:GAR requires that active reassessments remain open for at least 4 weeks unless a clear consensus...I repeat a clear consensus...for a particular action is reached. If there is no clear consensus, it can be closed after 4 weeks with no consensus. I would also prefer that the person closing the GAR was not directly involved in the discussion, as bias is always a possibility. Shirtwaist☎07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the primary objection from the person who started this reassessment, the supposed failure of criterion 3a, has been settled elsewhere, any remaining objections presented so far seem to be trivial and, if deemed necessary by consensus, easily fixed. So why not consolidate all remaining objections here and deal with them? [EDIT]Maybe we should start with this checklist.Shirtwaist☎19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't someone uninvolved in this discussion close it? I tend to agree that this should be decided on the CT addition and whether that meets criteria 3a, or even 4 for some editors. It was the reason this was started and most of the discussion deals with that issue. While geometry guys list is good some fall outside the criteria and it would probably be better discussed on the talk page first instead of further adding to this already long thread. AIRcorn(talk)21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would make it easier for the poor bastard who has to read all this and figure out the consensus though. Either way I feel it fails 3a. A see also link is a step in the right direction, but still falls short in my opinion. I would have thought a well referenced sentence acknowledging their existence and then disregarding them as unsubstantiated would be preferable to a see also with no context for most of the editors that think CTs should not be mentioned at all. So if we have reached the 'not a vote' stage then in my opinion this article should be delisted on this alone. I have no comment on the other issues raised. AIRcorn(talk)23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just 3 and 4; there are concerns about 1 and 2 as well. See GG's (and my) posts above for a fuller rationale. On 3 it isn't just the "CT" issue, though that is a glaring one. There are more general problems with 3 as outlined above and in article talk as well. --John (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On first read through the points raised by GG above didn't appear worthy of delisting, although they could (and should) be used to improve the article. If the 'glaring' problem is fixed I would strike my delist and look at them in more detail. AIRcorn(talk)01:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn - 3a states " it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[4]", accompanied by the note " This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." 3a does not say anything like "...and it mentions minor topics like conspiracy theories, or includes a See also link to conspiracy theory articles". Now, in order for your argument that it fails 3a to be valid, you have to establish that CTs are in fact a main aspect of the 911 attacks. So far, nobody has done that, in fact the person who started this GAR can't even do that and has admitted as much. So why don't we just drop the "no mention of CTs fails 3a" argument unless and until someone can come up with a decent argument that CTs ARE a main aspect of the topic? Shirtwaist☎03:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewing an article against the broadness criteria I measure it against what I think readers are expecting to read in an article. I also look for any major gaps in the timeline or if it is a topic I am unfamiliar with will google it to see if anything is missing. In the end we are writing this for the readers and as long as it is verifiable and accurate we should provide them with the information they are expecting to find. The CT's themselves are not a major part of 9/11, but I think the fact that many people believe in them is. As I said previously I live a long way from the USA, but on the anniversary there were discussions in the media about the various CT's. A short sentence anywhere in the article acknowledging their existence and then dismissing them would be enough for me not to oppose on this issue. I have not gone into the other issues in any depth, as this one to me seems to be the major sticking point. AIRcorn(talk)21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CT's themselves are not a major part of 9/11, but I think the fact that many people believe in them is. - What people believe about CTs is not what 3a is about. What people believe about CTs is a main aspect of 911 conspiracy theories, not an article about the attacks. Once you admit CTs are not a "main aspect of the topic" 3a becomes irrelevant. You can shift your argument about verifiable and accurate to 2, or your due weight argument to 4 if you want, but please don't read into 3a that which is not there, and then compound that mistake by basing your assessment on a false assumption. That's all I'm saying. Shirtwaist☎07:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remain quite incredulous that anyone would attempt to argue that the existence of conspiracy theories is not a significant part of the public reaction to the events of 9/11. Added to which the non sequitor about the fires being sufficient to cause the collapse of the buildings makes no sense without at least a brief mention of alternative explanations, as has already been said elsewhere. MalleusFatuorum22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remain quite incredulous that anyone would attempt to argue that the existence of conspiracy theories is not a significant part of the public reaction to the events of 9/11. - You have a point there. Since they are obviously not, the argument is unnecessary. Shirtwaist☎07:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reason people are talking past each other here is the lack of a common language to describe the subject. There are serious problems of NPOV across the article which defy our core policies, let alone Good Article requirements. Of these, it is very unfortunate that people have chosen to focus on the "CTs"; while the straw poll to remove all mention of these was deeply silly and deeply flawed, it is a symptom of what has gone wrong with the article rather than the actual disease. The sourcing, the writing, there are loads of things holding this article back. It isn't mainly about "CTs", I'm afraid and the insistence on focusing on this is deeply unhelpful. --John (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "talking past" Aircorn, I'm directing my comments squarely at them, expecting to get some kind of answer. And since I was responding to Aircorn's only opinion, which was that the article should fail 3a because of no mention of CTs (other than a See also link, of course), and since s/he had "no comment on the other issues raised" including the sourcing or the writing, I'm not sure who you think is insisting on focusing on this, me or Aircorn. Maybe you can clarify this for Aircorn and everybody else here who is of the opinion that CTs are a main aspect of the topic of the article, thus their absence from the article is a reason for failing 3a? Then maybe we can move on to the issues you think should be discussed, and we can stop wasting everybody's time with 3a concerning CTs. Shirtwaist☎10:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Meanwhile the article should be delisted as it clearly fails several of the GA criteria, something which no amount of wikilawyering will wish away. This article has major and serious problems and it would be helpful to acknowledge this so we can begin addressing these, with the eventual aim of having an article we could be proud of rather than embarrassed by. --John (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of assuming bad faith (on the part of admins who should know better) with false accusations of wikilawyering will wish anything away either. As far as the article's GA issues are concerned, I happen to agree with this experienced GA reviewer who originally failed the article, but now would pass it because of the improvements made. Shirtwaist☎21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't wikilawyering in spades then I don't know what is: "Since the primary objection from the person who started this reassessment, the supposed failure of criterion 3a, has been settled elsewhere, any remaining objections presented so far seem to be trivial". The bottom line is that this article isn't even close to meeting the GA criteria in its current form, and judging by the atmosphere here and on its talk page it never will. MalleusFatuorum22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, but GAR defines "uninvolved" quite specifically: "Significant contributors to the article are 'involved', as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be 'involved' unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment." MalleusFatuorum22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per request, I'm intending to close this GA reassessment in the near future. Obviously there's a lot to read through and consider, but I'll make every effort to get this done in a timely fashion (I imagine within the next 24-48 hours). For those unfamiliar with the GAR process, the reassessment's outcome will be decided based on reviewer consensus and weight of argument with reference to the Good article criteria. Having not contributed to this reassessment or been involved with the article in any capacity at all in the past, I believe I meet the requirement for closure to be undertaken by an uninvolved editor. Best, EyeSerenetalk08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, unless this is closed as no consensus, I think any closure is pre-mature. So far, the only issue that we've really discussed and reached any meaningful consensus on only resulted in the addition of a WP:SEEALSO link which is not part of the WP:GACR. Even if See Also links were part of the WP:GACR, it has already been resolved. Yes, I am aware that some editors have mentioned other items, but none so far have held up to scrutiny, let alone consensus. The most serious issue raised so far was whether a sentence should use future or present tense. To me, this is minor and should have been brought up prior to this request. In any case, this has already been fixed. If there are any real issues with the article, I am more than happy to look at them. But I would like the opportunity to do so. At best, I only have an hour or two a day to devote to Wikipedia and like I said, the vast majority this discussion was about CT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just took a look at one of the other so-called issues:
"The FBI was able to quickly identify the hijackers" is not an encyclopedic statement...who defines what is "quick".
"FBI agents to swiftly unravel the mystery of who carried out the suicide attacks and what motivated them"
"authorities were able to identify the hijackers so soon after the attacks"
"How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks?" Flagg asked. "They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that's how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings.
"I was devastated because word had already leaked out of the hijackers' identities," Flagg said. "But I was also excited that the FBI had so much evidence so quickly."
The "so-called issue" I was raising here was not about sourcing, but about what the article says in the unqualified narrative voice (cf. WP:WTW). Concerning your last comment, I put considerable work into reviewing this article, which included checking many of the sources (and finding discrepancies as a consequence). (It is not, in any case, necessary to check everything to recommend delisting an article, as any failing with respect to the GA criteria is sufficient justification for it not remaining listed.) I have also tried to focus on content and avoid/diffuse the confrontational attitude that seems to be associated with the article at present. I would appreciate it if that courtesy were returned. Thanks, Geometry guy20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources can plainly state something in their voice without a qualifier, I'm not sure Wikipedia should be any different. How would you write this sentence? Anyway, WP:WTW is part of the Manual of Style which is not part of the GA criteria. As for tone, you twice made references to WP:Wikilawyering. You should have known that is an offensive term, particularly when editors are trying to participate in the discussion in good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, normally I would refer AQFK to WP:AAGF but in this case I actually can't assume good faith on this user's part, because of their sneaky and dishonest behavior. AGF is not a suicide pact, as they say. This is going to be a problem if we are ever going to get the article to a decent standard, perhaps the main problem. Oh well, it is only one article out of two million and there are worse ones out there, though not on important topics. --John (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot assume good faith and your entire contribution is only to bring up inflammatory rhetoric from past discussions, perhaps you should move on to one of the other two million articles? Characterizing an arbcom notice as "sneaky" seems a bit over the top and perhaps you should remove yourself from the discussion until you can gain adequate perspective? --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I must have missed it. However I will take you at your word: if you and John refrain from editing 9/11 articles and related pages, I am willing do so as well citing you're pot/kettle argument and in the interest furthering the article and ending disruption. Deal? --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking. "Those who dine with the Devil need to use a long spoon", and I'm using a very long spoon. Your strategy of chasing editors away with the kind of intimidation we've seen here has resulted in the crock of ordure that we have before us now. Not healthy. MalleusFatuorum03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claim the article is "crap", "ordure" and other things...but I have yet to see you provide a mature dissection of the issues the article supposedly has. It's hard for anyone to imagine that you could ever be happy with this article...--MONGO03:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no difficulty at all in believing that are a great many other things that are true that you have equal difficulty in imagining. I will certainly never be happy with the article in its current form, and frankly neither should you be, but Geometry guy has pointed out a number of unresolved issues and Karanacs has suggested a pretty good alternative structure. Why not start thinking instead of knee-jerk reacting? MalleusFatuorum04:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so all you have to offer in your review is that the article is "crap" and "ordure"...I'm greatly impressed....then based on these fine rationales, I concur that you must be right and the article isn't a GA. I don't agree with GeometryGuy overall, but think he deserves a medal for being able to offer his critique that almost succeeded in drowning out your constant sniping about feces issues. Karanacs and I agree the article cold be restructured, bu not possibly in the same manner...I'm more in favor of eliminating sections and expanding others..but these are FA issues, not GA ones..--MONGO04:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point you seem to continually struggle with is that the article has to meet the GA criteria, which it very clearly does not, and you've been told why not by several editors. Now let's move on. MalleusFatuorum04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their opinions are just that, opinions, but I again am thankful to Geometry guy and Karanacs for taking the time they did to make suggestions...I think Tom harrison and AQFK and even I have applied some (but not all) of their suggestions....I think the article is vasted improved from when it was promoted to GA, so I'm wondering if you're more interested in "winnning" this argument rather than acknowledging that there have been improvements. I question your objectivity on this matter. It's not like I haven't written a few articles around here so I think my opinion on this matter is just as valid as others.--MONGO04:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
