Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why does this article not discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories as a valid scientific or historical hypothesis?
A1: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field generally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it would be a disservice to our readers to have a full description of the topic that does not reflect the consensus view. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories and Reliable sources guidelines.
Q2: Doesn't Wikipedia's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment?
A2: Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not require that all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Wikipedia, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found in the relevant scholarly, academic, or otherwise expert community. If that community rejects an idea with unanimity or near-unanimity, due weight requires that that rejection be presented.
Q3: Why didn't you include (other theory) in the article?
A3: Wikipedia's due weight guidelines state that an article should "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Thus, we cover those conspiracy theories which have received significant coverage in reliable sources.
Q4: Isn't the official government story a "conspiracy theory" too?
A4: Wikipedia refers to reliable mainstream sources when determining appropriate descriptions. As such sources do not commonly refer to the official account as a "conspiracy theory" neither do articles here. The term conspiracy theory is typically used for claims that an event is "the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." Although the version in government reports would fit the literal meaning of the term, conspiracy theories are generally viewed as theories that "read between the lines," and assume a hidden motive & massive manipulation of evidence to deceive the public. By nature, conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated and intended to question the official or scientific explanation.
Q5: Isn't "conspiracy theory" a pejorative term? Shouldn't the article be named something more neutral?
A5: Titles are typically chosen based on whether it is the common name used for the subject in reliable sources. While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative. There have been numerous discussions about the title of the article since the attacks occurred. After several debates, "conspiracy theory" has been judged to be the most common, accurate, and neutral term to describe the subject this article covers.
Q6: My edit was cited. Why was it removed?
A6: Wikipedia requires all contentious claims be cited to reliable sources. This is difficult with conspiracy theories, as they are already outside the mainstream. Generally speaking, we do not consider citations from blogs, websites with no editorial oversight, or YouTube videos to be reliable. If the material is about living people, this is especially important. If you feel your citation fits within Wikipedia's guidelines, please post a comment on the Talk page so it can be discussed.
Former good article nominee9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 12, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
Emblem-important.svg
This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.
Toolbox

Please strike or at least correct this sentence[edit]

"In April 2016, the Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Åsa Romson, called the events of September 11 an "accident" and refused to apologise for it."

Mrs Romson didn't say this in English, she used the Swedish word "olycka", and, as the article Åsa Romson already mentions, the word "olycka" can mean "disaster" just as well as "accident". It can also mean "tragedy".

In my opinion, there is nothing interesting at all about someone calling 9/11 a "disaster" or a "tragedy", so the sentence should be stricken. But at the very least, the original Swedish word and it's different shades of meaning must be mentioned. This is not some personal agenda of mine. It's simply a misleading bit of information, based on mistranslation, that I'd like to see corrected. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.68.121 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No answer for a month? That is indeed the Swedish word's meaning, and that is indeed the word he used. See [1].
I think that part should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018[edit]

change:

Such theories revolve around the putative content of the 28 pages of the 2002 report of the U.S. Congress Joint Inquiry that are withheld from publication.[1][2]

to:

Such theories revolve around the putative content of the 28 pages of the 2002 report of the U.S. Congress Joint Inquiry that were withheld from publication[1][3] until July 15, 2016.[4]

The "28 Pages" were released (albeit in a redacted format) subsequent to the writing of that paragraph. I have no idea whether or not the claim that 9/11 theories revolve around those pages remains true in the present day, but either way this article should reflect their publication (perhaps with the reference I copied from the 28 Pages article to show that it happened). Thanks, CodyIsIn (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference post2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Justin Elliott (September 7, 2011). "The enduring mysteries of 9/11". Salon.
  3. ^ Justin Elliott (September 7, 2011). "The enduring mysteries of 9/11". Salon.
  4. ^ Demirjian, Karoun (15 July 2016). "Congress releases long-classified '28 pages' on alleged Saudi ties to 9/11". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
 Done DRAGON BOOSTER 05:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

new link to ae911truth[edit]

You may want to add this. https://www.ae911truth.org/project-due-diligence

Claustro123 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Claustro123: Why? I don't think we don't even link to the old site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a reliable source (WP:RS). —PaleoNeonate – 00:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes. But 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves are based on unreliable sources. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE. Our articles about conspiracy theories are based on skeptical sources that are reliable, not on the conspiracy theorist writings themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that in the "no-planes" section, someone got biased[edit]

I was looking through this article when I saw the no-planes sections. I saw this


         "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is". According to David Shayler, "the only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes", he says, which would be well beyond the capabilities of contemporaneous hologram technology.

The bolded and italiced section is what I would call biasism. It's outside the quotes, so the conspiracy argumentor is not downvoting their belief.

Wikipedia calls of unbiased opinions. AND, this is a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaxx37 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The "no planes theory" is just sheer nonsense, even among the conspiracy enthusiasts. You expect Wikipedia to take it seriously? Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not your place to determine what's nonsense. There is a notable phenomenon of people believing there were no passenger planes, thus inclusion is warranted. The bolding was clearly meant to mock, and your own biases on the issue are obvious. No mentioned or unmentioned no plane theorists other than Shayler believe there must have been holograms, while all the others share several beliefs (fabrication of hijackers, possible use of winged cruise missiles or drone aircraft to simulate impact, CGI overlay in broadcast and amateur video footage, etc.) Muirchertach1 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So - why are you removing this particular item? All of the no-planes theories are complete nonsense, why pick and choose which are somehow more credible? And there's no bolding at all, that's just the highlighting in the diffs. And you've reverted four times. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving. (non-admin closure)Ammarpad (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


9/11 conspiracy theoriesConspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 attacks – To keep it consistent with the actual page(September 11 attacks [Username Needed] 14:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to explain your rationale more. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Common Name and WP:Concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is used by the BBC and appears to be more common in other sources while the target doesn't get anything much calling it that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - but possibility for redirect? Currently, as the title stands it's concise and using the word 'surrounding' makes the article sound less credible as the word connotes to it being 'up in the air'. Although the main article is named September 11 Attacks, a redirect from 9/11 - this page could redirect to an alternative title such as Conspiracy Theories of the September 11 Attacks, but using 'of' to replace surrounding. Jake Symons (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (WP:CONCISE) but I also think that a redirect would be fine. —PaleoNeonate – 22:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


False flag[edit]

Some of the conspiracy theories mention false flag.

Added the related link to "see also" section.

Was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&oldid=prev&diff=887095377

Subject of a discussion. Do some of the conspiracy theories mention false flag and is it worth mentioning? (your call)

Stefek99 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't abuse the article for conspiracy theory speculation. This is longstanding consensus, Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm for speculative nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
False flag is already linked to in the article body text.[2] There's no need to repeat it in the links section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019[edit]

"Most of the civil engineering community?" 79.67.59.92 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It does sound a bit WP:WEASEL-y, but in a technical sense if one civil engineer disagrees then "most" is accurate. Since the rest of the sentence points out the existence of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I think it's okay as written. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Citizen grand jury[edit]

There is a short, three sentence section in Citizen grand jury that touches on 9/11 conspiracy theorists; however, I do not see discussion of this in reliable sources. I'm wondering if someone more familiar with this subject matter could take a look. (@Acroterion:?) Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither cite is to a reliable source. Unless some more serious reference can be found the section should be removed. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)