Talk:The CIA and September 11

Comment

Why does this book have a separate entry rather than being part of the article on Andreas von Bülow? It's not note-worthy enough to warrant its own page. Of course, if it is merged with the von Bülow article, the man may sound like a paranoid nut-case rather than a responsible person supporting a noble cause. Ande B. 20:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Try reading Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria --Striver 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Striver, I read the section on notability criteria before posing the quesition. My feeling is that the book has not had wide enough circulation in the English speaking community to be deemed "notable" enough to warrant a separate page on the English Wikipedia. It's primary claim to notability is the political position of the author. This info might, however, be well placed on von Bulow's page or on a page specifically addressing arguments and organizations that are compatible with the subject matter. I don't know that getting into the specifics of some of the assertions in the book is very helpful unless you want to precipitate a lot of flames or attacks on the author's believability, motivations and, quite honestly, firmness of mind. The title of the article, referring to the CIA and September 11, might be more attention grabbing than the name Andreas von Bülow but perhaps you could devise adequate links that bring those interesetd in the topic to his page. Ande B 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The book really needs to be translated and published in English, before it merits an article here. Also, the English-language version should have wide circulation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria:

Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. --Striver 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I changed my original vote from Delete to Keep after TheGrappler turned it into a high quality article, answering all my concerns about notability. Ande B 00:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Which best seller list?

The article states the book was "number three in the country" but what best seller list was that on? Esquizombi 15:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed: it was the Spiegel's. TheGrappler 03:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

GA

Great work. Balanced and cited coverage of a controversial subject. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

articles on books should be on the books

Unfortunately, the entry dealing with the contents of the book is miniscule, while e. g. the criticism of the book, taken mostly from a single "Der Spiegel" article featured much more prominently and convolutedly, even though this article didn't even deal exclusively with the book in question.

I have taken the liberty to correct some of this disproportionality as well as the clear and blatant bias in some parts. Wiki should be neutral, and not the government loudspeaker for what is deemed appropriate thought and criticism. I was escpecially careful to delete any suggestion that von Bülow has a "theory" or "states" something he cannot possibly know or prove. He does not do that as is correctly pointed in the short summary of contents.

Forgot to include signature and time stamp, so here they are:

--Rkrichbaum 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (previous edits as 84.178.175.61)

Most of the last edits were a good call - the section on the book's content certainly needing a little more disambiguation (the "stronger" claims being made in it were actually the work of a Bulow supporter, not a detractor, though - it can be dangerous to attempt to ascertain an editor's POV!). It's good to include the ARD interviews - the anti-Semitism claims should clearly be balanced with Bulow's rebuttal of the claims, but finding a citation has proven tricky. One thing that is unsatisfactory is that a citation is desperately needed for the ARD interviews - could a properly referenced one be provided? I also removed the reference to the SPD being the governmental party - the article has already established that Bulow is a member of a mainline, not fringe, party, since Bulow was a government minister. Bulow has nothing to do with the current or previous government though - he remains a member of the SPD but has basically drifted to the sidelines. Besides, the current government was established well after this book was published. Where the SPD is relevant is the governmental reaction when the book was published, which ought to be restored. Governmental reaction to a sensitive or controversial book is clearly relevant to an article on it (the SPD government privately distanced themselves from the book; we have a citation for this so it should be included). Also, the book caused a controversy within the German publication industry, not on its substantive content but on whether it was a wise or even ethically or journalistically defensible to publish such a book, especially so soon after 9/11. Why has reference to this been removed? This is a strongly referenced claim - many editors and writers were extremely upset about Piper's decision. The book caused a storm at the world's largest bookfair. How is this not relevant to an article about that book? Articles on books should be on the books is palpably true - but it includes details like: what were the contents of the book? Who wrote it and how was it written? What was the critical and political reaction to the book? Did the book cause any controversies, and if so, what were they and who was upset? Was the book a commercial success? Did it achieve any influence? Book articles shouldn't just be plot rehashes. In this particular instance, the contents of the book were largely unexceptional, as it was effectively a rehash of previously existing material. The controversy and criticism the book sparked were relatively large. A "balanced" article may therefore be expected to focus more on controversy and criticism than substantive content of the book. This article clearly needs more on the content, but in the absence of an English translation, English-language references are hard to come by. It would probably be worth mentioning that Bulow's book was widely misrepresented in the press as actually making substantive claims as opposed to speculation.

It would also be good to track down original critical reviews in the German magazines and newspapers. This would reduce the reliance on the later cover story in the Spiegel. However, that cover story itself became an important media event (the Spiegel cover story was reported worldwide) so it would be wrong to to talk down the importance of it. Spiegel criticised Bulow's methods and claims specifically (though a lot of venom was also directed, individually, at the other writers) so although it was not solely an anti-Bulow piece it remains highly relevant. This should be balanced by the fact the Spiegel cover story itself came under criticism by the global press. Removing the claims that speculation and anti-Americanism have also made appearances in the Spiegel sets up a false dichotomy between Spiegel's criticism and Bulow's work. Theil effectively claimed that Bulow merely occupied a place on a continuum and that Spiegel had sat on that continuum too. For an outsider reading this article now, it may appear that Bulow was actually out on a limb with his apparently outlandish claims, and it took the face of responsible journalism to prove him wrong. Theil suggested the truth of the matter is more complex, and this is relevant to an article on the book on two counts: (1) it contextualises Bulow's work and controversy surrounding it (while allegedly speculative and anti-Americanist, the same allegations have been levelled against more mainstream German publications too) and (2) it undermines the most scathing critical attack the book came under. One more problem:

One of the claims in the book is that only one Israeli citizen died in the attack. This was reported in the New York Times on September 22, 2001, but the Israeli Consulate later asserted that seven Israelis were among the dead in the WTC (it is unclear how many of those were cases of dual citizenship) [8]), and that "a number of indications" exist "that point to some sort of connection between the Israeli Mossad and the act and perpetrators of 9/11."

This paragraph doesn't make sense! Should it be:

One of the claims in the book is that only one Israeli citizen died in the attack. This was reported in the New York Times on September 22, 2001, but the Israeli Consulate later asserted that seven Israelis were among the dead in the WTC (it is unclear how many of those were cases of dual citizenship) [8]. Bulow goes on to suggest that "a number of indications" exist "that point to some sort of connection between the Israeli Mossad and the act and perpetrators of 9/11."?

TheGrappler 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, on a related point, although Bulow doesn't claim to be a conspiracy theorist, the book has been described as consisting of "conspiracy theories" by: the Telegraph, the FAZ, DW, Newsweek, and taz ([1]). Bulow may say that he is only asking questions, but it ought to be noted that the book is almost universally perceived as part of conspiracy literature. This really ought to be mentioned in the lead, which, at the moment doesn't state what the book is about! The book is also not primarily about the CIA, which is something that ought to be mentioned in the lead (the title suggests otherwise).TheGrappler 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the paragraph which didn't make sense and included a reference to the ARD interview transcript, hopefully in a satisfactory manner.

As to your other points:

- SPD reaction when the book was published (the SPD government privately distanced themselves from the book; we have a citation for this so it should be included).

I had missed the citation, now I see it's from the Telegraph: "Berlin has made no official response to the book, but behind closed doors ministers have tried to distance themselves from his radical views."

Is this really a verified / verifiable claim? ... "behind closed doors" (as in "sources that refuse to be named"? why on earth would they do that ...) ... "ministers" (how many?) ... "have tried to distance themselves" (really?, how? to what extent? why only tried, not just did it?) "from his radical views" (which ones exactly?). What a mealy-mouthed weasel-worded sentence. I do not even understand what the Telegraph reporter is referring to when she says "radical views". And all of this despite the fact that nobody would think that von Bülow speaks for the current (now former) government in the first place.

- Also, the book caused a controversy within the German publication industry, not on its substantive content but on whether it was a wise or even ethically or journalistically defensible to publish such a book, especially so soon after 9/11.

This is still mentioned in the article. There is no need to refer extensively to such a storm in a teapot - the Börsenblatt and Deutsche Welle are not exactly opinion leaders in Germany and this debate was quickly over.

-Articles on books should be on the books is palpably true - but it includes details like: what were the contents of the book? Who wrote it and how was it written? What was the critical and political reaction to the book? Did the book cause any controversies, and if so, what were they and who was upset? Was the book a commercial success? Did it achieve any influence? Book articles shouldn't just be plot rehashes.

I agree with each and every point. The public controversy was over in a matter of weeks, though. You publicly target someone for anti-Semitism in Germany - and the matter is closed. As to the other anti-no,no - anti-Americanism, the allegation is not as damning, but more often than not used as a broad brush to dismiss anything critical of our dear friends across the Atlantic. Comes up occasionally as a topic, but is far from being a consolidated view or movement or something like that. The "conspiracy theory" allegation is, in part, something new - as von Bülow correctly observes, we don't have such a "culture" of conspiracy theories as the US do - in part it is of course associated with the Nazi's demonization of the Jews.

The latter is the reason why I object to the inclusion of "conspiracy theory" into the lead. In a strictly American context, such a characterisation might be fair. But elsewhere, even if a number of German papers and radio stations "perceive" von Bülow's speculative reasoning as "a conspiracy theory" - the connotation undoubtedly is, especially in combination with the (very vague) allegation of anti-Semitism which is cited in the article: that von Bülow is a Nazi, a closet case at best. And this is simply not true! Let alone supported by facts. There was an organised media campaign against the book - let's not perpetuate this by reducing Wikipedia to an echo of strongly opinionated articles.

--Rkrichbaum 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply appreciated, as ever. Thanks for your thoughts.

(1) I agree that it is inaccurate for this article to unilaterally characterise the book as conspiracy theorist when its author claims that he is "just asking questions" - indeed, it really is a book of questions more than a book of accusations. (Of course, a question asked in a particular way can be an implicit accusation, but that's another issue...) However, it is also true that the book is almost universally branded as part of conspiracy theorist literature. I think that the best way out would be to mention this in "the book has faced allegations ranging from..." section. It is misrepresentative not to include the fact that the book is almost universally seen as part of conspiracy literature by the press (in fact it also seems to be interpreted as such by the conspiracy theorist community - one of the reasons this book is misunderstood is that pro-conspiracy theorists "adopted" the book, rather unfairly, and that was one of the factors behind the initital inaccurate description of the book's content. It wasn't put there by someone anti-Bulow but by someone who was "pro-Bulow", interpreting Bulow as a fellow-traveller). I can't find a strong citation to back up the way it is seen in the conspiracy theorist community - I will have to do a bit more digging for that, but it would clearly be relevant. The fact that the mainstream press believed (perhaps inaccurately) that the book is conspiracy theorist definitely belongs in the article. It shouldn't be seen as Wikipedia characterising the book, but we should report the characterisations given by others, especially if they are widespread and consistent. We ought to counterbalance it by including Bulow's view of the work. I can't find an interview in which he makes this clear. Do you know if he sees it as primarily a piece of journalistic endeavour, for example?

(2) The lead should make clear that the book doesn't actually accuse the CIA of being behind 9/11. I think we can both agree on that! The book's title probably didn't help when it came to accurate reporting of its contents - it is certainly very provocative.

(3) Yes, I do believe the Telegraph's description of official governmental reaction is relevant and citeable, but perhaps it needs to be better written. For instance: "Official government reaction to the book was mute [this is what the Telegraph description provides as an undisputed fact] but it was reported that ministers privately distanced themselves from its claims [to make it clear that we are relying on a press report which is less easily verified]". Have you heard of the "dog that didn't bark"? The lack of an official government reaction to a controversial book written by a former government minister (and member of the governing party) is still worthy of reporting in itself. Inclusion of this fact answers what is, to my mind, an obvious question: what was the governmental response to a book written by an ex-minister and current member of the governing party? Answer: none officially. Does the comment about ministers' private reaction bear secondary reporting? I think the answer is yes. You asked some pertinent questions (who said what?) but these are questions that can never be expected to be answered in a story like this. The question boils down to "should we report what we do know?" which, in this case, is that the Press reported that ministers' "unofficial" reaction was to distance themselves from Bulow. As a comparison, until more information becomes available about the inner workings of the Bush White House, we can never say (a) "Despite publicly welcoming the visit of the Chinese leadership to the United States, both George W. Bush and Condi Rice privately expressed their distaste for the Chinese Communist politicians whose policies they strongly disagreed with" but we could report in Wikipedia that: (b) "George W. Bush publicly welcomed the visiting Chinese leadership warmly. However, the American press reported [give citation] that leading White House figures privately felt uneasy about the visit of Communist politicians whose policies they found distasteful". Option (c) is simply to report "George W. Bush publicly welcomed the visiting Chinese leadership warmly." Now, (a) we can't do because we would be speculating, based on press reports, who precisely felt what (those "in the know", particularly politicians and political journalists, probably know exactly who, but Wikipedia doesn't, so we can't say). Option (c), though factually correct and verifiable, doesn't reveal the whole truth and is therefore somewhat misleading. Option (b) is fair, balanced and verifiable. Even if the press reports are wrong, they are listed merely as press reports, not infallible facts.

(3) As for the "storm in a teacup" about the debate this caused within the publishing industry - by removing the meat of this section, it is left with a trailing and unsupported sentence in the lead. It probably needed trimming but I think too much information has been removed. A balanced overview of this book should consider: (a) did the journalistic qualities of this book provoke a reaction within the publishing industry (emphatically "yes"; it may have blown over but some people got very angry about it, others felt decidedly uneasy... and it caused a controversy at the world's largest book fair, so it was a storm in a fairly large teacup, as publishing-industry-tea-cups go...) and (b) was the book unusual, or part of a trend, in this regard (i.e. it was found surprising that what was seen as a poorly researched book on a controversial topic was published so soon after the event; was this book a one-off or part of a trend towards what has been seen as a trend towards profit-driven sensationalism, even among reputable publishers?) We have citations to support the latter view. The accuracy, reliability and motives of the press in a free society are of the highest importance, since the citizenry are reliant on the press for our information. This book has been seen as part of a trend towards degradation of the quality and reliability of the press in pursuit of sales figures. I fail to see why this is so unimportant that it doesn't deserve a place in the article, provided we report how "it has been seen" rather than directly accusing it.

(4) Thanks for getting hold of that reference and for sorting out the paragraph that didn't make sense. There's some information I'd like to get hold of but haven't been able to. Do you happen to know how the book was advertised or promoted? Was there a major promotional campaign or was it simply a word-of-mouth best-seller? Also, I'd like to find the original German reviews rather than articles about the post-publication controversy. Did it receive attention in the "Book Reviews" sections of the major newspapers? I can find quotations allegedly from a book review in Spiegel (distinct from the "Panoply" article) but haven't been able to track down any original reviews. Are there any online that anybody here knows of?

Many thanks, TheGrappler 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide a summary of the main claims of the book, after having read it, and having it available for reference. Someone keeps undoing it to the original version which had only one sentence on the book's content. It's ok to keep on editing, this may be improved, but just deleting additional, accurate content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.5.48 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects

I've pulled this page from being under WikiProject Iraq - I can't see how this counts as an Iraq-related article, but people are welcome to add it back if a coherent reason can be given. More suitable projects have been added instead, largely based on those allocated to the primary 9/11 attacks article, USGOV to represent the fact that the CIA is involved, and WikiProject Germany since this is a German book that caused more controversy in Germany than elsewhere. It's possible that this has resulted in project allocation overkill but I've set the importance to "low" to compensate, where possible. TheGrappler 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Citation required" tags

I will pull one of the "citation required" tags in the lead section (regarding allegations that the book fostered anti-Semitism and/or anti-Americanism), since lead sections are generally not expected to be choked up with references. They should, however, only summarise the following sections of the article. Since the existence of anti-Semitism allegations is backed up by references for later statements in the article, I'm happy that the need for a citation is fulfilled.

There is another statement apparently added by an anti-conspiracy theory editor that has also been flagged as requiring a citation - namely, that the book has no scientific evidence i.e. that it is nonsense. It is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to debunk the entire web of 9/11 conspiracy theories that Bulow was drawing from, so I'll pull the statement entirely. TheGrappler 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The CIA and September 11 (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|GA sweeps process]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No obvious problems checking against GA criteria, proceed to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The artcile is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • It complies sufficuiently with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Paragraph #3 of Response needs referencing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • references appaers to be RS and support the statements where verifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • No OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Broad. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • Focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • one image is used, suitably tagged, with non-free use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • and suitably captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I would like a reference to the paragraph cited above. On hold whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, all sorted now. Keep GA Status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference added. It was from the Spiegel article being discussed in the paragraphs above and below - I'd hoped it was fairly obvious it was all coming from the same source, but of course in retrospect it looks a bit like a randomly inserted, uncited paragraph. TheGrappler (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

New edits

The first paragraph now contains more information about the main points addressed in the book. There are others, and possibly other readers will add to this section.

I also took out the sentence "However, Deutsche Welle found other industry observers who credited an increasingly competitive German publishing market with persuading companies to take on books they previously might not have accepted." because it is not sourced and it is essentially the same statement as the following, sourced statement, namely questioning the wisdom of the publisher in releasing the book. "Other industry observers" which were "found" and suggested that the publishing market was "increasingly competitive" is too vague and not entirely factual at this point.

Furthermore the "Boersenblatt" is not a bookstore, but an industry (trade) publication, so I deleted the reference bookstore.

I've deleted the separate section on anti-semitism (which was introduced by another editor in 2007) and put it under the header of response. The motives of the author have been questioned as either anti-American or anti-semitic. The author maintains a negative view of the Bush/Cheney administration, as well as of the geopolitical strategy outlined in Brzesinski's work on the new world order. It seems important to reflect this adequately, and not follow demagoguery in this description.

I have also looked up the reference to Wistrich. This is the extent to which the book is cited "Several bestsellers appeared in Germany and France during 2003, blaming the CIA for 9/11, depicting George Bush as a “true reincarnation of Hitler,” or insinuating a hidden connection between the Israeli Mossad and the perpetrators of the Twin Towers massacre.49"

"Footnote 49 See “Panoptikum des Absurden,” Der Spiegel 37/2003. This reportage demolishes the conspiracy theories of best-selling German authors like Gerhard Wisnewski (“Operation 9/11—An Attack on the Globe”), Mathias Bröckers, and former German cabinet minister Andreas von Bülow (“The CIA and September 11th”), who believe George W. Bush capable of any dastardly deed and insinuate an Israeli/Jewish connection." There is no reference to "perpetuating myths and stereotyping Jews as criminal and conspiratorial" neither in the book, nor in the article by Wistrich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.7.51 (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I also added a reference to a new edition of the book in August 2011, and a sentence on this in the summary of the book's content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.137 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I described Schroem as a 'journalist and author' according to entries on his own websites, where he states that his main interest is in investigative journalism. "Intelligence expert" suggests a professional who has worked as an intelligence officer, a social scientist, a politician, lawyer or some other professional training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.137 (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I also added von Buelow's credentials as having served on the parliamentary committee on intelligence agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.137 (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that the book is the primary topic. Dab page moved to The CIA and September 11 (disambiguation) and deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The CIA and September 11 (book) → The CIA and September 11 – This is the only thing in Wikipedia with this exact title. We have no article dedicated to the role of the CIA with respect to 9/11, and the CIA plays only a small role in the commission report and the conspiracy theories; any ambiguity can be resolved in a hatnote, or the "See also" section. bd2412 T 18:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose what titles Wikipedia has is irrelevant, this is a (book) and needs to be WP:RECOGNIZABLE as such. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Toil? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that is nonsense Toil (Tolstoy) is more notable than an uncharting punk album. The proposed new title minus (book) is clearly ambiguous and would mislead readers using mobile phones who might think that an article The CIA and September 11 without (book) is about what is listed on CIA and September 11 dab page. User:BD2412 did you realise that there was a dab page? Seems there is content/topic on CIA and September 11 spread across 3 articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be nonsense, but the album "that not charted"--irrelevant, as charting has stopped being a criteria for notability--still being the primary topic, per consensus. If you think the book, in fact an essay, is primary, try again in 6 months with a more solid argument than a POV. For this, I did check the DAB page, obviously was DABbed against something else. In this case, the dab page is hardly ambiguous per many reasons. First, I wouldn't expect an article about "The CIA and September 11", I'd expect "the CIA during 9/11" or "The CIA after 9/11". The article about the CIA is not at CIA, but Central Intelligence Agency, and September 11, at September 11 attacks. So ambiguity here is partial, not total. A similar previous case would be Architecture in Helsinki; would you think it is about a band? No; would it need a (band)? No. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, unambiguous. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is the primary topic even if there was a second article. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2015 (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.

GA Reassessment

The CIA and September 11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist per lack of comments or improvement. I've resolved the cns (they were both verified by cites in different parts of the article) and the label but I've now added a {{bsn}} and the tone issues remain. Queen of Hearts ^talk 03:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This 2006 promotion has MOS:LABEL issues, 2 citation needed templates, and also might have some tone/essay-like issues. Additionally, some of the information may be redundant or unrelated (e.g. why do we need to know the other books about 9/11 that were published during that time?) Spinixster (trout me!) 13:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.