Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 3 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk.

Template:September 11 arbcom

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Misplaced Pages:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Misplaced Pages. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: September 11 / History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skyscrapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Template:WP1.0 Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, Moved, 20 August 2008, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 44#RFC on page title and comma RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Not moved, 13 October 2010, Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 54#Requested move RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 31 March 2014, Talk:September 11 attacks#Requested move 2 (or more)

September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 19, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed July 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed August 30, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 25, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted May 24, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, and September 11, 2013.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (11 September 2011). "On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars'". The New York Times.

September 11 attacks was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 24, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

conspiracy / alternative theories a culture section??

The problem that I see with this article that any mention of FACTS not fitting into MAINSTREAM theory is excluded from the article. I am NOT talking about conspiracy theories, but about RELEVANT, RELIABLE, NOTABLE FACTS. Why is Richard Clark's statement irrelevant, or does not deserve WP:DUE ? Or transportation secretary's? And let me remind some that WP:DUE is a policy, while WP:FRINGE is a guideline. Case is not closed, as it gets reopened over and over by a number of good faith editors, and it gets unjustifiably 'closed' by people without counter arguments. 175.100.37.226 (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing with your proposal is that any mention of theories not fitting into real facts would be included in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

David Johnson, you don't speak for me. I agree that the section on conspiracy theories in this article should be larger. There has been much mention of those theories and the people who believe them in the media. This article does not currently contain information on that topic in proportion to its coverage in the media. Cla68 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, and as mentioned above, there is already a article for "conspiracy theories" and that's where these "contributions" belong and not on a factual page. Misplaced Pages deals in facts and not theories. Once again: case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Cla68 on this. But I would also like to point out that there seems to be an astounding amount of facts that are deliberately left out of this article, and relegated to a sub-page. On the other hand, this article goes to greath lengths to highlight the role of al-Qaeda, bombarding the reader with excessive biographical details of attackers that may not be entirely relevant to 9/11. -A1candidate (talk)
  • This article is about facts, not crackpot conspiracies. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not facts, and thus do not warrant mention in any real detail here. Case closed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Everybody, please remember that Misplaced Pages , by policy represents mainstream views on any subject, with minority views or fringe views given proportionately smaller or no coverage. See WP:FRINGE, bearing in mind that the view that somebody other than the named conspirators carried out the attack is very decidedly a fringe point of view, as reflected in the scholarly accounts that Misplaced Pages uses for its sources. Please remember that the existence of other, proven conspiracies does not validate the notion that the events of 9/11 happened as a result of a governmental conspiracy, and that Misplaced Pages is not a sounding board or soapbox for conspiracy enthusiasts on any subject. That does not mean that the views of authoritative critics of the agencies that failed to prevent the attacks and the investigation process such as Richard A. Clarke, who, it should be noted, is not a Truther, should be excluded. Who screwed up and why is relevant: the problem is that there are few academic sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

    The argument has never been about the lack of conspiracy theory coverage of this event on this website....the argument has always been about not covering the conspiracy theories in tremendous detail in this article. The primary issue we have always had was who we would reference and what level of detail we would go to. The conspiracy theory proponents always want more, so as far as where I stand I prefer no mention.--MONGO 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

you are missing a point i am trying to make. There are very relevant and notable people like Richard A. Clarke talking different things about 911, and yet you guys guarding this article are trying to pretend that every alternative view is coming from wacky non-reliable and irrelevant sources. !!! Shame on you. 175.100.34.115 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe testimony of transportation secretary recorded on C-SPAN is reputable enough 175.100.37.226 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

youtube was a quickest link i found, however, it is obvious that there is a c-span resource showing the same thing. if we agree it deserves WP:DUE, i will find original link.202.8.75.186 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand how this works. You bring reliable sources, or you don't insert anything. Until you bring reliable sources, you are soapboxing. This is your last warning. --Tarage (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

so let's see if i got it right this time:

Bolton, M. Kent (2006). U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-creation. Rowman

somehow a book from this author deserves to be in the article, whoever he might be, but i guess Richard Clarke's book is, self-published?

BTW, there are dozen books allowed in Further Reading section. How come you didn't complain about those.. I guess you won't complain about the addition of a new one, by someone more notable for the events.

Richard, A. Clark (2004) Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror

Oh, wait, there's citing of a self-published books even in Sources section, so maybe, just maybe we actually can use Clarke's book as a source for information in this article as well? In fact, there are few dozen books used as sources... so my question to you guys is, how do you judge the merit of a book before you let it go in the article, or as is case here, when you want to dismiss it as, to quote some "fringe... irrelevant... not reliable..." Where this vastly different treatment of books comes from? Can you enlighten me, as I personally cannot see why his book is so much less significant than those few dozen books already used as sources in the article.

If you want third party source, I see Slate magazine was already used as a source in the article, so maybe we can use it again:

175.100.42.251 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clark's book is a reliable source, and is being cited in the article in question, so you pass in that regard. Now what is it you wish to add to the article? I am trying to see what it is you want added from your previous posts but I'm not seeing it. Please be as concise as possible, as any additions to this already bloated article should be short and to the point as to not exacerbate the problem. --Tarage (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. So somewhere in the "Investigations" section, or maybe even at the end of "Planning of the attacks" section:

... Hijackers were people that CIA had known were al Qaeda and were in the United States....

... Somewhere in CIA there was information that two known al Qaeda terrorists had come into the United States. Somewhere in FBI there was information that strange things had been going on at flight schools in the United States....

124.248.191.82 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a statement from "counter-terrorism tzar". Whether you believe it or not is your thing. BTW, wikipedia is not about "believability" but about verifiability. I tend to think that a person in charge of counter-terrorism for the FBI knows a bit more than you or me on the issue... no? Whether it fits into the rest of the story is not that relevant... Planes flying into buildings for 100+ minutes without being shot down by the world's most powerful air-force and anti-air defense is also unbelievable, yet that's how it is, and that's what the article describes... as should be. 175.100.45.169 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

also in the culture section, to borrow from the U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#NORAD_timeline, In their 2007 book, Without Precedent, 9/11 Commission chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that 9/11 conspiracy theories had grown primarily because of problems in the previous story about the planes... 175.100.45.169 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We already note in the article that the CIA knew al-Hazmi and al-Midhar were al-Qaeda operatives living in the United States and did not promptly disclose this to the FBI. That said, I am not entirely satisfied with how it is included at present.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, from the current description it is not clear that CIA knew it for months. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

More good sources with more detailed info: Our review also found that the CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them. In addition, the FBI did not assign sufficient priority to the investigation when it learned in August 2001 that Hazmi and Mihdhar were in the in the United States. While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks.

Also, special agent's testimony... nice info about Intelligence v. Criminal Investigation issues... 202.8.75.186 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is already bloated as it is, and as User:The Devil's Advocate pointed out, it is already mentioned. If you feel more needs to be said, please propose a change, but remember, anything longer than a sentence or two will probably be too much. --Tarage (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also please consider registering an account. I'm having trouble telling the IP editors apart. --Tarage (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No account needed, thank you. In regards to change, I already gave few proposals.. My POV is that current article understated the failure of FBI and CIA in preventing some terrorists, and that that should be corrected and stated more clearly. I am sure other editors can further improve my proposals if needed. If the article is bloated, maybe some less important info can be left out. Cheers! 202.8.75.186 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 'reconstruction' and 'memorial' sections can be condensed, as this article is about attacks... 202.8.75.186 (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Make things easier for me. A lot has been said and I'm still getting lost in what is quoted text from books and what is suggested changes. Just put a "Before: blah blah blah. After: Blah bleh booh." Thanks. --Tarage (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why waste time...it's just another IP here screeching about the lack of fringe junk in the article. Were not going to add junk some once-upon-a-time-expert said before he got his ass shitcanned...--MONGO 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, your wisdom inspires me! 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I chose MONGO for my username because I knew people associate that name with wisdom.--MONGO 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To reply to Tarage, CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them. can be placed in CIA investigation section in place of the current mention of hijackers.. as this makes it clear that failure was not in not knowing, but in not using knowledge. And for the MONGO, this was written by the Office of the Inspector General, not by the shitcanned person you refer to... Also, justice.gov reference I think is more appropriate than current one of conservative think tank. 202.8.74.149 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are suggesting we insert a direct quote, the above change is not what I asked for. Either way, please provide a before and after like I requested. Also, let's keep it civil folks. --Tarage (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

202.8.74.139...were not adding that LIHOP garbage to the article.--MONGO 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarage, I gave enough specific suggestion for the improvement of the article. It's now upon editors with account to accept or reject. Misplaced Pages is collaboration, so go ahead and collaborate on this instead of constantly objecting and rejecting and whatnot.. Cheers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, nice that you can speak in plural, like as if you know what everyone else thinks.. Some people may suggest you are not only wise but psychic as well. I unfortunately do not have those powers. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Were not your minions....you want the article to change then create a username and start editing....otherwise all you're doing here is soapboxing. Yes, I am psychic...I predicted accurately that 2012 would not be the end of the Earth.--MONGO 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to add my support for MONGO's comments above. The contributions from 119.82.253.45 and 202.8.74.149 (? same person) is is really taking soapboxing to the limit, whilst hiding behind an unregistered IP address - this is where my "conspiracy theories" come in! Also support comments from Tarage. I strongly advise keeping article as it is. David J Johnson (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

David, so to get this straight, citing government's official sources that mention things you dislike... is soapboxing and conspiracy theory pushing. Congratulations. 119.82.253.45 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

IP Editor: I am going to ask you one more time, please provide a clean and simple before and after segment so I know exactly what you are attempting to add. I'll even give you an example.

Before: "The dog was lazy."

After: "The dog was tired after a long day."

That's all I want. I am not a mind reader, and I will not try to guess your intentions and edit for you. If you do not wish to create an account, my offer is the only offer you are going to get. Tell me exactly what you want edited in the format I provided, or your edit will not be considered. I think I have been more than fair. --Tarage (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Before: " He criticized their failure to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and their failure to share information on the two men with the FBI."

After: "CIA did not provide information to the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar when it should have and we believe the CIA shares significant responsibility for the breakdown in the Hazmi and Mihdhar case. However, the FBI also failed to fully exploit the information that was made available to them." {{Cite book|url=http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0506/chapter5.htm|title=A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Prior to the September 11 Attacks|author=Office of the Inspector General}}

The material you wish added might be better in the article September 11 intelligence before the attacks which needs a lot of work anyway.--MONGO 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It can be added there as well, there are many repeating statements in this article and its forked pages... I don't understand why section in this article already mentioning CIA/FBI investigation shouldn't be clear enough. You didn't make this proposal for the less clear statement which has been in the article for a while. 202.8.74.149 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Then YOU can create an account, add the material YOU think is needed and see.if it stands. Stop coming here screeching that it's up to us to do your editing for you.--MONGO 11:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

how hypocritical.. if i had account and made a change there would obviously be a revert war by you as you dislike the change profoundly it appears. your WP:OWNership of the article is obvious. 49.156.39.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I add my total support for Mongo's comments above. This correspondence has gone on for far too long with the anon. unregistered person commenting, but not prepared to test their views. As I have previously said, I see no reason for hiding behind a IP address when they can create a account for themselves. I'm sure I speak for everyone that no-one here is going to edit for them. David J Johnson (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, provide what I asked for, or drop it. Final warning. --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

your response is beyond ridiculous. i gave you a suggestion in the format you asked for, and you still keep ignoring it. Fill your user page with your warnings, i don't give a damn about them. I am sick of editors like you quasi-discussing and collaborating but in fact acting so passively aggressively. 49.156.39.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, it appears you did provide what I asked for. My apologies, I missed it. I'll look it over and leave comments shortly. --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay so I have a few problems with it. One, it uses the phrase "We". Unless this is meant to be a direct quote, Misplaced Pages does not use the word "We", "I", or any other word of the sort. If it is a direct quote, it shouldn't be added anyway because it lacks a context. Lastly, I don't really see much difference between what is there and what you want to change it to. All it does is say that the both the FBI and CIA failed. Here's my counter draft.

"The Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) conducted an internal review of the agency's pre-9/11 performance and was harshly critical of senior CIA officials for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. He criticized their failure to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and their failure to share information on the two men with the FBI. Critics have responded that the FBI did properly exploit the information available to them."

Would this work? --Tarage (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right that two versions are very similar, which ony makes the above comments of some users even more interesting. The one I found in official document just sounds more clear to me... Your new version includes all the info from both, so might be best, and you can add new official govrnment reference to it as well. Not sure which reference the last sentence comes from... ps. yes, I was thinking of placing the direct quote.. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Part of the conflict comes from your instance to remain an IP editor. While that is your decision, it makes trying to follow the conversation difficult. Any other IP editor can sneak in and start spouting insane statements and it looks like it's coming from you. Anyway, I'll make the edit a little later on, unless anyone objects. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I object but mainly because this article is already overly broad and lacks focus and this has the tint of conspiracy theory meddlesomeness to it...if it's that important to the IP poster they should create their own account and add it themselves and see if it stands.--MONGO 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Object Totally agree with Mongo's comments above. We have given the IP editor many chances to register and present his views, which they seem unable to do. The correct place for their theories is one of the many "conspiracy" sites on the internet. This discussion has gone on far too long and perhaps we should apply for page protection? David J Johnson (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'd be against adding anything put forward in this manner, but I guess I don't see the conspiracy theory angle in this at all. All I see is a small elaboration that people find fault in both the CIA and FBI. Since we already explicitly mention that fault was found in the CIA, and this is a reliable source, I don't see the problem with the above addition. What part of it is setting off warning flags with you? --Tarage (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tarage and thanks for your reply. My only concern is that we appear to have the same person editing from multiple IP addresses with very subjective quotes. That person dos not appear to want to edit the article themselves, but expect other editors to carry-out their edits. If the IP editor feels so strongly then they should carry-out the edits themselves and see if they stand. As for the "conspiracy theory" angle, as mentioned above the quotes are very subjective and is already alluded to in the present article and why does the person involved appear to be editing from multiple addresses? Rightly so, anyone can edit Misplaced Pages - but I see no reason for constantly hiding behind IP addresses. With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The conspiracy angle is that it's hard to explore the roles and relationships that existed at the time. The CIA was walled off from the FBI through laws. Neither the CIA or FBI (or Justice Department) was responsible for immigration. Since the structure of the government changed massively after 9/11 (Homeland Security now controls immigration and the Patriot Act and FISA courts are where this information is shared. So in hindsight, the IG can be critical that the CIA didn't break or even nose up to the law at the time. There is already a sentence about what the CIA didn't do. Juxtaposing it against what the FBI did/didn't do would be a synthesized connection that the IG of the CIA didn't make. The sentence in the article is adequate for what the IG said but adding more about the FBI would require an entire background of how those agencies were allowed to interact as well as assessing if DoJ/FBI was even the right place to report them or if it would have been the state department to deny visas. There's an interagency connection being made with the additional wording that I am not sure exists in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

To me this explanation sounds like a conspiracy theory. You say it is hard to explore roles and relationships... and yet you did it so succintly in a single paragraph. If you just go to the source referenced, read the two paragraph conclusion section in it, you will see that no synthesis or original research was done in the proposed change. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

BTDT. The edit is completely unnecessary because it's already covered accurately. It's too complex without details and details make a burden for no benefit. Your version is unduly critical (synthesized with cherrypicked quotes) and to flesh it out to show the criticism in context leads us back to the current version. There is simply no value to it. The FBI IG finds nearly all the issues were systemic institutional issues and states that even if they did all the things the IG cited differently, it's still unknown what would have happened. It's too much to address to keep it in proper tone and perspective and cherrypicking quotes is counterproductive to that. For example, these two terrorists entered the U.S. in January 2000, (a year before Bush was in office) and this is listed as one of the opportunities. But it never says why the FBI would have any reason to find them. The U.S. has millions of immigrants every year including some like the Boston Marathon terrorists that become citizens and the FBI is now almost entirely focused on counterterrorism. It wasn't until late August 2001 when they learned these POS's were part of Al Qaeda and that's when they actively started searching for them. So no, I oppose your edit. In fact, after reading what we have and the source for it, it may need to be removed too. If it's too watered down for you, it references the intelligence before the attacks page where the details can be included. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the tag teaming IP's is not acceptable. There's a reason why we don't allow anonymous proxies or tor nodes to make IP edits and this is in that category. A single IP address that's consistent is okay. Multiple IPs is a form of proxying and should be discouraged with extreme prejudice. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can read this failed proposal: Misplaced Pages:Restrictions_on_Anonymous_Editing_from_Shared_IPs which refered to the mainspace.. but I see you are even more ambitious, and would like to push it into talk pages as well. Double fail I would guess... The moment WP stops anonymous editors from participating, I will stop participating... and hundreds of thousands of other contributors I am sure... So go ahead, re-vive above and similar proposals... and stop bothering IPs in discussions till then. 103.14.250.251 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr;nr. My only proposal was for you, not policy. You fail to identify yourself as being the same person either with an account or even using a signature. Until then, different IPs are different people making different requests. Please start a new section each time you change IP's. Please feel free to edit mainspace articles as an IP without any discussion necessary (seriously, it's not a policy, everyone can edit!). Be BOLD and implement what you see fit with appropriate, reliable sources. You don't even need an edit summary so we really don't ever need to read your opinion of ANY edit! (Isn't that a superawesome win-win for everyone!?). If your only participation is 9/11 talk pages though, I've already lost too much sleep over losing your incredible insight and edit supervisory abilities. Thanks for all that you do! --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I give credit to Mongo for his tireless contributions to this article. I also too agree with Mongo, but I will put it my own words and I won't be shy about it. This article is not the place for every crackpot, unsubstantiated, and downright fabricated theory. This article only deals with the facts and the "real" truth, not the "fake" truth. This article only needs to mention that "conspiracy theories" exist, but does not need to name or label each one. We have an article for the fiction already. No need to repeat the untruths. If someone wants to push their agenda then they have the entire world wide web to dilute, but Misplaced Pages is not a place for activism, so take the crackpot theories elsewhere.--JOJ 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Remember, Misplaced Pages doesn't report the "truth", it reports what the sources say. If the sources are wrong, then Misplaced Pages is wrong. If we WP editors try to decide what the truth is, then we are engaging in original research, which is against our policies and expressly forbidden. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • And the sources, at least the reputable ones, already say the truth, so no problem here. Only the nutjob sources say anything different.--JOJ 21:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment MONGO corrrect again. There's a little too much fringe and synth. Clarke had a title in the administration but even the source for his book in his biography on WP said he embellished a bunch of stuff . You wouldn't get that picture that the source paints from his WP article and we certainly don't need that nonsense here. As for Cla, we are not "truthers." Clarke is not a particularly reliable source for recollection of events prior to 9/11 nor is his self-portrait and the way he is portrayed above accurate to the sources. He's a primary source for himself and secondary sources say he made stuff up. --DHeyward (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with the views above that the article is already long and less focused than it could be. The suggested change, in so far as it does anything, makes those worse. It might go better in one of the more specific daughter articles. Tom Harrison 12:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• CommentAgree with the views above and support Tom's view that the article is already long and less focused. As I have previous stated the suggested changes should be in another article. David J Johnson (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• CommentWell, given that consensus appears to be very strong against inclusion of the above edits, I will not be preforming them. I do invite the IP editor to register an account though. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reports: FBI in contact with bin Laden as far back as 1993

According to newly released court documents, the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden since 1993, but this important piece of information was apparently omitted from the 9/11 investigations.

• FBI Never Revealed It Had Al Qaeda Mole Who Met Bin Laden

• Special congressional panel to investigate FBI contact with bin Laden

Perhaps worthy of a brief mention somewhere? -A1candidate (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Article "Verschwörungstheorie!" in german magazin, by Paul Schreyer

LOL

This is, by far, the most pathetic article regarding 9/11 from all Misplaced Pages projects.

The section "9/11 Commission" is particularly charming. Not a single word about conflicts of interest, resistance to investigation, unreliable evidence, limited scope and "set up to fail".

No. Let's transform this Misplaced Pages article into a US government press release with a "en rose" approach to the subject.

Nice job, guys. Dornicke (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The censors would do the project a favor by respecting and answering valid criticism made by users, instead of censoring them and labeling such users as "trolls". Dornicke (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Provide specific suggestions for improving the article, and you'll be taken seriously. What you've posted above is just vague complaints and taunting, removed per Misplaced Pages:NOTFORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So let me repeat my "specific suggestion, since you didn't see it: "The section "9/11 Commission" is particularly charming. Not a single word about conflicts of interest, resistance to investigation, unreliable evidence, limited scope and "set up to fail". Just for a start. I'll write some of my other specific suggestions later. Dornicke (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We await that anxiously.--MONGO 18:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Do you have anything to say about the lack of criticism regarding 9/11 commission in this article? Dornicke (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an entire article about criticism of the commission already: Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. What, exactly, do you think needs to be in this article, rather than that one? — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We have here an article about one of the most relevent events in contemporary history. A governamental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic. Dornicke (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this is probably just the most noticeable example of a larger problem,characteristic of the entire article: it completely lacks political and social analyzes. An article about 9/11 that simply does not mention the invasion of Iraq? Hey, let's make articles about the Amazon that do not mention deforestation. Dornicke (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You havent provided a single reliable reference yet...so I'll remind you know that this is not a forum.--MONGO 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, use the "let me answer like a robot" strategy. I do not have to provide "sources" to make the point I'm making. Dornicke (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its liked above...read it...this is not a forum. If you're looking for a forum the web has plenty. If you don't have a single reliable source to add that substantiates your argument then all you're doing is ranting.--MONGO 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no requirement that presenting sources (of what??) is mandatory for using this talk page to "discuss improvements to the September 11 attacks article". And I don't understand how criticizing the article would be "forum". Dornicke (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have previously pointed out (see my post above) that the FBI failed to inform the 9/11 Commission that they had a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden. Perhaps it's worth a mention? source -A1candidate (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely relevant to the article. Dornicke (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hear we go again. A series of trolls trying to push their conspiracy theories yet again. Please stop, as others have pointed out. there are even pages on Misplaced Pages relating to criticism of the 9/11 Commission, keep your "comments" there and not on this Talk page - which should be devoted to improving the article and not for your POV theories. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@David J Johnson - There's an article on criticism of the 9/11 Commission, but not the FBI's role in the attacks. Also, I don't see any good reason for keeping all sorts of criticsms in separate forked-out articles. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. -A1candidate (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warning: If anyone here calls other editors names again, like "trolls", I will be reporting you to ANI. Grow up people. Dornicke and others, please list more references you think should be used on criticism of the 9/11 commission. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Considering that both ANI and ArbCom consider it perfectly acceptable to call other editors "cunts", I doubt if any action will be taken over "trolls". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The the real LOL is that Cla68 is lucky his 3 month block last year didn't become permanent...so his concern that the word troll has been used here is about as hypocritical as it gets. Regardless...I don't see much substance with the Daily Telegraph reference provided by A1Candidate. I don't see it as anything more than what it is...namely a morsel of nothingness that the conspiracy theorists live to build a mountain around.--MONGO 23:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to nip this one in the bud. Dornicke, either bring reliable sources that support what you are arguing, or take it somewhere else. Misplaced Pages is not a forum, and if you don't have reliable sources, you will not be permitted to drone on. Period. Final warning. --Tarage (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Again: "I see no requirement that presenting sources (of what??) is mandatory for using this talk page to "discuss improvements to the September 11 attacks article". I could see the point if I wanted something to be added to the text. Not the case here. I'm talking about general whitewashing on the text. You don't like? I don't care. And I won't tolerate people telling me that I should "present sources or shut up", much less threats such as "final warning". Dornicke (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay...you think the article is whitewashed. Feel free to edit it and add what you think it lacks and see if others agree. No idea what you expect to accomplish on the talk page except to post a complaint, which you have already done, repeatedly.--MONGO 01:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, come on Mongo. You know very well that if it is not the "government's mainstream view" it'll survive only a few seconds, no matter the quality of sourcing.TMCk (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha. I didn't knew about the "Criticism of the 9/11 Commission" until today, reading this thread. Whatever the OP's stand, it just shows again how this article reads like a federal statement of what exactly happened, leaving out anything (fringe aside) that is not conform with our government's view. It's sooooo obvious and thus ridiculous. Not thinking myself that will change in the near future but still, it would be nice if that would happen at some point... before files would be declassified. We have plenty non-fringe reliable sources to do better in giving average readers enough information (w/o having to dig further) to make up their own mind, which with all that is known to be a fact would be that our government's view is mostly right but sure not 100% as they're self serving and try to hide their shortcomings just like you and me. Try to call me wrong on this... bah... TMCk (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that you and other conspiracy theory POV pushers are only capable of ranting and complaining but you never produce any references that can stand the test of reliablity and other policies? That's a rhetorical question...we already know why.--MONGO 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hah, Calling me a "conspiracy theory POV pusher" is itself a conspiracy you got there running yourself :P TMCk (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Still zero substantive references!--MONGO 15:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that you and other conspiracy theory POV pushers are only capable of ranting and complaining but you never produce any references that can stand the test of reliablity and other policies?

Have no idea, but you seem to be a little obsessed by that topic - after all, the only person talking about "conspiracy theories" here is you. I'm talking about Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. That is not a "conspiracy", much less a "theory", it's pretty much the factual reality, as known by every one and reported by several mainstream, independent sources. Feel free to continue your "holy war" against "conspiracy theory POV pushers", but you're losing your time here. If you want to talk about conspiracy theories, there's an entire article about that. Here, I'm talking about factual history, as told by mainstream sources. I thought that was pretty much clear by now... Dornicke (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You've not provided a single reference to back up your complaint. You keep providing us with your opinion yet provide us with zero references or article edits. Stop wasting our time.--MONGO 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you feel you are wasting your time, then just ignore it. I'm talking to the community of editors here, not with you, your approval is not necessary for anything. We can deal with your absense with absolutely no problems. My complaint is not related to a "reference", my complaint is about the "style", the "writing" of the article. You can't fix that problem with references. So references have nothing to do with my complaint. If that's still not clear now... well, I'm sorry for you. I'll have wait for opinions of editors that understood my complaint. Dornicke (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2 (or more)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Snow close. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → 9/11 – I know this has been discussed before, but 9/11 is by far the most commonly used name, it's time we recognize this. Charles Essie (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note what appears to be the last title change was discussed here. —  AjaxSmack  02:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose.--MONGO 04:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – the short 9/11 is too ambiguous. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:SUBPAGE we should not use subpage locations when avoidable. Also per Dicklyon, that's just ambiguous, and could easily mean September 11, November 9, September 11 AD, November 9 AD. And it is frequently known as "September 11th" so I don't think 9/11 is by far the most commonly used form either. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry but 9/11 is not just an abbreviation, it is nearer to slang/shorthand. An encyclopedia requires the minimum register of a reputable printed source not a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been discussed before and for all the reasons mentioned above. David J Johnson (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree on the basis of COMMONNAME, and most people understand the term 9/11, but 9/11 could be misconstrued by some and I don't think that's there's anything wrong with the current title. JOJ 12:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per all above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. 9/11 is ambiguous, the current title is more recognizable. Changing the title to 9/11 doesn't help anyone. Zarcadia (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• When has the term "9/11" ever been ambiguous, has anyone here honestly heard someone use the term 9/11 while referring to some else? Charles Essie (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The dates September 11 and 9 November for starters. Zarcadia (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal, yes the term has other meanings, but it's most commonly used to refer to this, how about a compromise, let's move this page to 9/11 and create a new disambiguation page titled 9/11 (disambiguation). Charles Essie (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons given above. 9/11 is too ambiguous, as already stated. Please accept consensus. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• New proposal, How about 9/11 attacks? Charles Essie (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC) currently shown

• Oppose Please just accept consensus. This topic has been discussed before and agreed as currently shown. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose moving, not helpful. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. --Tarage (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose not according to WP:USEENGLISH guidelines. 9/11 is referred as September 11 in US English. ApprenticeFan 04:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose No. November 9 is not relevant and confusing. September 11 is much more universal and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 is not used to refer to 9 November? If so I think you would benefit from reading the article Calendar dates. Also, please make sure you sign your posts Zarcadia (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? Did you not comprehend that I said the exact same thing you did? I suggest you read it yourself. Signed -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Please don't take offense, I honestly didn't understand the point you were making. If you meant that 9/11 can mean 9 November and confusing as unrelated to this article then I think we're on the same wavelength. Zarcadia (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not aware of anything happening on 9 November. This is English Misplaced Pages (i.e. English language), not American Misplaced Pages. Too ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class September 11, 2001 articles
• Top-importance September 11, 2001 articles
• WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
• B-Class United States History articles
• Top-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States History articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Top-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Top-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Mid-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Top-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Skyscraper articles
• High-importance Skyscraper articles
• WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2013)
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees