Talk:Criticism of the 9/11 Commission

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of the 9/11 Commission 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

United States: September 11 High‑importance

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as High-importance).

Section sizes

Section size for Criticism of the 9/11 Commission (14 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,467	1,467
Conflicts of interest	4,984	8,313
Henry Kissinger	3,329	3,329
Resistance to investigation	1,981	1,981
Unreliable evidence	24	4,979
Interrogation under torture	2,408	2,408
FAA and NORAD	2,547	2,547
Limited scope	2,161	7,401
Able Danger	3,955	3,955
FBI director's critique	1,285	1,285
"Set up" to fail	1,440	1,440
Denying support from Saudi Arabia	1,902	1,902
References	30	30
External links	1,124	1,124
Total	28,637	28,637

Conflict of Interests

The citation concerning calls with the whitehouse to an alleged archive of an AP article is to an article about a book and all the cited claims are from the book, not the AP. Shouldn't the citation be to the book, Philip Shenon's "The Commission: The Uncensored"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.129.196.189 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intimidation of Witnesses - Violations of WP:RS and WP:OR?

This is in regards to this edit [1]. The entire section is sourced to a single cite [2]. Is Scribd a reliable source? I'm not that familiar with that Web site but it appears than anyone can upload a document to it. Even if it was reliable and the document accurate, I'm concerned that this constitutes WP:OR. I did an albeit brief Google search and did not find any reliable sources that covers the release of this document. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source of the memo so it looks genuine (The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States page 52 Memo Concerning Minders' Conduct)[3]. Wayne (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better. It certainly addresses my concern regarding WP:RS. However, this is still just a memo. I don't know how you can include it in the article without violating WP:OR. I would think that we would need another WP:RS that has covered this memo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your latest changes. First of all, Scribd is not a WP:RS per [4]. Even with the New York Times article, it contains WP:OR and WP:SYN. Please stop adding content in violation of Wikipedia policies. You've been warned about this before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of evidence

I'm removing the section about Censorship of evidence, any discussion about the merits behind the decision will end up like one above, that whole section is based on one reference, partly written by Sibel Edmonds, it is WP:OR by the definition, so no way and no need for discussion. InnerParty (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what it is that you take issue with? That this criticism has been directed seems to be supported by their own statements. Unomi (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted InnerParty's latest deletion. Suggest we discuss rather than edit war, which this is coming close to. Jusda fax 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You two work in team? I'm having trouble with the reference, as explained above. Is there a secondary reliable and verifiable source which carried the claims of Ms. Edmonds. InnerParty

(talk) 17:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is from a notable organization, and is directly attributed to that organization in the article. The article isn't stating that the criticism is necessarily true, just that it is criticism that has been made by a group. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'notable' organization is 'founded in 2004 by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' and the page we have about it is bordering with dubious per se, to my knowledge she is restricted to blogs and confined within Prision Planet, perhaps there are some new developments so I'll grant you opportunity to provide 'notable reference' which will prove your point. In absence of such, that section is WP:OR, we have rules and you can twist and shout but we'll follow those. InnerParty (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonds has appeared in The Sunday Times of London (ref), The American Conservative (ref), and Military.com (ref). Whether or not the NSWC article constitutes reliable source, I'll leave for others to decide. I do find the article useful in that it provides basic reference information which is useful when searching for more detailed information from reliable sources, such as those I just listed. Wildbear (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of building 7 either here or in the main article on the commission report? remarkable.

No mention of BMCC Fiterman Hall or the Bankers Trust Building or the World Financial Center either, but they were hit by the towers just like WTC 7 was. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist?

Why do we have a Criticism of the 9/11 Commission article? Do we have a Praise of the 9/11 Commission? This seems to violate WP:NPOV. This is especially weird considering that the commission's report was extremely well-received and is considered to be one of the definitive reports on the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps we should rename the article Reception of the 9/11 Commission article where the mainstream POV is presented and criticism is a subsection. What do you guys think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]