Talk:September 11 attacks
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. |
Article policies
|
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 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?
A1: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Wikipedia. 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.[1] |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 20 June 2024
[edit]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.
- September 11 attacks → 9/11
- Reactions to the September 11 attacks → Reactions to 9/11
- Motives for the September 11 attacks → Motives for 9/11
- Planning of the September 11 attacks → Planning of 9/11
- Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks → Timeline for 9/11
- Media documentation of the September 11 attacks → Media documentation of 9/11
- Casualties of the September 11 attacks → Casualties of 9/11
- Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks → Lists of victims of 9/11
- U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks → U.S. military response during 9/11
- Communication during the September 11 attacks → Communication during 9/11
- U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks → U.S. government response to 9/11
- Detentions following the September 11 attacks → Detentions following 9/11
- Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks → Health effects arising from 9/11
- Economic effects of the September 11 attacks → Economic effects of 9/11
- Cultural influence of the September 11 attacks → Cultural influence of 9/11
- List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks → List of cultural references to 9/11
- Entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → Entertainment affected by 9/11
- Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks → Airport security repercussions due to 9/11
- Legal issues related to the September 11 attacks → Legal issues related to 9/11
- Trials related to the September 11 attacks → Trials related to 9/11
9/11
is more commonly used than September 11 attacks
. 2600:1700:6180:6290:1C26:EFE8:3894:862E (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed again and again, with no consensus to move. See the top of this page and the archives. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose. I read 9/11 as 9⁄11. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - "9/11" is a colloquial shortening; the formal name is "September 11 attacks", and being an encyclopedia, the formal is more appropriate. As long as the redirect goes here we're good. Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close. This has been discussed previously and no new arguments are being presented here. — Czello (music) 11:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to remove use of word Islamist in September 11 attacks wiki
[edit]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.
I'm proposing removing the word Islamist on ground it is a Loaded language, MOS:RACIST,WP:NPOV. It is currently used in lead paragraph, short description (Islamist terror attacks in the United States).
The word “Islamist” is often considered a loaded word. It carries connotations and implications that vary widely depending on context, audience, and can evoke strong emotions or judgments. Originally, “Islamist” referred to individuals or groups advocating for the implementation of Islamic law and governance based on Islamic principles. However, since September 11 attacks, especially in Western media and political discourse, the term has become associated with extremism and terrorism. This shift has led to a broad and often negative interpretation of the word, conflating peaceful political movements with violent extremism.
The use of “Islamist” can thus be seen as pejorative and can perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims, suggesting that any form of political Islam is inherently radical or violent. This broad-brush approach fails to recognize the diversity within political Islam and the distinction between moderate, political, and extremist elements.
Moreover, the term can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements or parties within Muslim-majority countries that seek to engage in the democratic process while adhering to Islamic values. As a result, the use of “Islamist” requires careful consideration of context and intent to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and contributing to Islamophobia.
The term lacks a precise definition and can be used to describe a broad spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. This ambiguity can lead to overgeneralization and misrepresentation of diverse groups and individuals. The term’s ambiguity further contributes to its loaded nature. For some, Islamist simply denotes a political ideology, comparable to terms like “capitalist” or “socialist.” For others, it implies a threat to secular governance and Western values, which can stoke fear and prejudice. This duality can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations, impacting public opinion and policy.
Using Islamist here can inadvertently contribute to Islamophobia, fostering a monolithic and negative view of Islam and its followers. However, due to its frequent misuse and the heavy baggage it carries, “Islamist” is indeed a loaded word, it must be employed with care requiring careful and context-specific application to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or unjustly maligning individuals and groups. Gsgdd (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, you're worried that the perpetrators of 9/11 are tarred with a word "associated with extremism and terrorism", a word that has "often negative interpretation", is "pejorative" and which "can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements". Er...Oppose, obviously. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- If that's what you understood - maybe read it again without prejudice. Ty Gsgdd (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have given greater thought to your proposal before publication. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the concern is tarring Islamists in general unjustly. An Islamist is merely someone who abides by one of any manner of political Islam. Turkey's government is Islamist. That term alone does not imply political extremism, militancy, or any of the other traits. Since the "war on terror", it is however true that false opprobrium has been foisted on the term "Islamist", with naive and ignorant commentators using it interchangeably with terms like "jihadist". Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- correct. The attacks on September 11, were carried out by the extremist group al-Qaeda, which is driven by a specific radical interpretation of Islam. The term "Islamism" broadly refers to political movements that seek to implement Islamic law and principles in governance. While not all forms of Islamism endorse violence, the ideology behind al-Qaeda is a militant form of Islamism that promotes jihadist terrorism. Currently i think the use of Islamist in short desc and lead violates wiki NPOV.
- The motivation behind the 9/11 attacks was complex and rooted in a variety of factors, including geopolitical grievances, a reaction against U.S. foreign policy, and an extremist worldview that justified the use of violence to achieve its aims. It is important to distinguish between Islam as a religion and the specific radical ideologies that drove the 9/11 attackers. It should not be shortened just to Islamist without context Gsgdd (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing unjust about it. Islamists are little different than Dominionists or Zionists when it comes down to it, and Wikipedia doesn't sugarcoat those ideologies. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rather than call out the people who commit acts of violence, you propose not identifying these people in hopes that the next terrorist is not identified. I think the kkk and white men werena target for a while. I hear no mention of re-branding the kkk 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If that's what you understood - maybe read it again without prejudice. Ty Gsgdd (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Briefly, why is this an RFC? Has it been discussed before? If not, perhaps remove the RFC template and just have a normal discussion. On the merits, yes, Al-Qaeda is more specifically and aptly a "jihadist" organization, which is much more specific than mere "Islamist", which just means anyone inclined to political Islam. Other applicable terms could be militant Islamist or Islamic extremist, but "jihadist" more or less covers all of those bases, so job done! Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Job not done. Multiple RS refer to the attackers as Islamist. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great, but we don't want just what any old multiple RS say. We want what the best in-depth analysis of Al-Qaeda now state. But in any case, why wouldn't you want to specify that it was a specifically militant Islamist or jihadist attack? What is wrong with greater specificity? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a question of WP:DUE. I think "jihadist" is less used than "Islamist" and I doubt that "islamist" generally requires further specificity in the context of 9/11. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just because its widely used in RS doesn't mean its okay. After 9/11 emotions were high - and western media used the word negatively and continues to do since. Thats why i think it is loaded word, and MOS:RACIST Im also do not support using militant Islamist. It still do not address my concerns. It just adding word militant before Islamist. Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. "because it's widely used in RS" is exactly why it's ok in Wikipedia. Your personal objections to the word are irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but "militant Islamist" clarifies that violent "militant Islamism" is beyond the general concept of Islamism, just as a "political extremist" is something beyond a normal political actor. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about this? Instead of "Islamist suicide terrorist attack", where "suicide terrorist attack" is a piped link to just "suicide attack", we un-pipe that link, and clarify that it's an Islamist terrorist suicide attack? Same words. Better order. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also advocating for ending the association of religion with terrorism. When a Christian commits an act of terrorism, we do not label it as “Christian terrorism,” nor do we call it a “Hindu terrorism” when a Hindu does the same. Millions of people read Wikipedia, and we should stop promoting Islamophobia and religious hatred. Islamism isnt the cause of 9/11. that's what the article is saying. Gsgdd (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- This comes down to sources. In any case, the argument for what you suggest would need to be made at Islamic terrorism, not here, if at all. Incidentally, Hindu terrorism does exist as a page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist or to Islam in lead paragraph and short description without context and explanation. This isnt about the concept of Islamic terrorism which can exist independently Gsgdd (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's absurd. That's exactly what the RS do associate it with. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well? Gsgdd (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It's fundamental to being a Wikipedia editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- yes - did you read Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Gsgdd (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I first read it in about 2010. Why? It's quite ironic for you to raise it which makes me think you haven't understood it, or understood any of the fundamentals of our approach to editing. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- i think, there is more to it than you think. for eg. it say "In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible"
- It says "This word has multiple meanings, and the relevant one is "The point at which an action is triggered, especially a lower limit." This means the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability" it means to me, that is not the right standard, just the minimum
- It also talk about Truth being subjective. "Here we prioritize facts over subjective truths." Gsgdd (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your grabbing at tiny out of context straws to ignore what that essay is shouting out you. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I first read it in about 2010. Why? It's quite ironic for you to raise it which makes me think you haven't understood it, or understood any of the fundamentals of our approach to editing. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- yes - did you read Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Gsgdd (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It's fundamental to being a Wikipedia editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well? Gsgdd (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gsgdd: You could have left my middle ground edit in place while continuing to discuss. You're really not building a consensus coalition here. But as you will: now "Islamist" is back in place. Great result all round. Good job. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323 i appreciate your discussions. But your edit doesn't address my concern. It should stay in place - until i can get more eyes from neutral editors. Changing it right now, may prevent editors from understanding my points. Gsgdd (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not really, because you could still keep objecting to the word Islamist even after me edit, which incidentally was also about resolving a piping issue, which you have now re-crapped up again. You are unlikely to gain consensus to remove any mention of anything related to Islamic ideology when the perpetrators here were motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources are also not with you. You have to separate what you want from what is realistic based on sources and policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I want to try. It may be okay to explain it with context. What's not okay is blindly calling Sept 11 attack as Islamist. Short in description reads Islamist terror attacks in the United States. Are you saying this is inline with wiki policies ? Gsgdd (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not really, because you could still keep objecting to the word Islamist even after me edit, which incidentally was also about resolving a piping issue, which you have now re-crapped up again. You are unlikely to gain consensus to remove any mention of anything related to Islamic ideology when the perpetrators here were motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources are also not with you. You have to separate what you want from what is realistic based on sources and policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323 i appreciate your discussions. But your edit doesn't address my concern. It should stay in place - until i can get more eyes from neutral editors. Changing it right now, may prevent editors from understanding my points. Gsgdd (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist
I mean... yes. Because it clearly is associated. — Czello (music) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's absurd. That's exactly what the RS do associate it with. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist or to Islam in lead paragraph and short description without context and explanation. This isnt about the concept of Islamic terrorism which can exist independently Gsgdd (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is about your own misconceptions principally. See the articles on Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Already replied it above Gsgdd (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- a Hindu committing a terrorist attack? You are going to bring in Hindu's . (Personal attack removed) When was the last time a Christian group attacked a county? Violently? I get handing out bibles can be seen as attack. Islam does not like respect other religions. There in lies the problem. 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- This comes down to sources. In any case, the argument for what you suggest would need to be made at Islamic terrorism, not here, if at all. Incidentally, Hindu terrorism does exist as a page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- what about this
- The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11, were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by extremist Islamist group al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. Gsgdd (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with that - although the target article's title ("Islamic terrorism") is somewhat dubious in my view. But "Islamist terrorist suicide attack" in this article works for me. 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also advocating for ending the association of religion with terrorism. When a Christian commits an act of terrorism, we do not label it as “Christian terrorism,” nor do we call it a “Hindu terrorism” when a Hindu does the same. Millions of people read Wikipedia, and we should stop promoting Islamophobia and religious hatred. Islamism isnt the cause of 9/11. that's what the article is saying. Gsgdd (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just because its widely used in RS doesn't mean its okay. After 9/11 emotions were high - and western media used the word negatively and continues to do since. Thats why i think it is loaded word, and MOS:RACIST Im also do not support using militant Islamist. It still do not address my concerns. It just adding word militant before Islamist. Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a question of WP:DUE. I think "jihadist" is less used than "Islamist" and I doubt that "islamist" generally requires further specificity in the context of 9/11. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great, but we don't want just what any old multiple RS say. We want what the best in-depth analysis of Al-Qaeda now state. But in any case, why wouldn't you want to specify that it was a specifically militant Islamist or jihadist attack? What is wrong with greater specificity? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry - i dint realize we needed to discuss first before opening rfc. removed RFC for now Gsgdd (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Job not done. Multiple RS refer to the attackers as Islamist. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- This really should be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did. Gsgdd reverted me, so let's do this.
- This is a non-starter of a proposal, and Gsgdd is simply trying to right great wrongs, which is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt social change, and should not be. The arguments that RS are "wrong" and therefore should be ignored is not going to be of any use on Wikipedia.
- Further, casually throwing around the term
racism
is a dangerous game, and one I believe will blow up in your face. Gsgdd, I strongly suggest you step back and reconsider your approach. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- I have already communicated, i removed the RFC tag shortly after posting it. It need not be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. It no longer applies Gsgdd (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree with the need for caution around these labels, specifically given the way they are misapplied, I think it is appropriate to describe AQ as Islamist. This doesn't change the fact there are peaceful Islamist movements, but your proposal is like saying we shouldn't call Hitler "right-wing" because there are plenty of non-fascist right-wingers. Yr Enw (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Words has many meaning. I think Islamist is the wrong word. We label al qaeda as jihadist terrorist group or something specific, rather than labeling 9/11 as a islamist attack. It just wrong. that's the truth i believe. Gsgdd (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jihadist is a good alternative, but it doesn’t make Islamist wrong. I guess the best approach is always reflecting what sources use the most (preferably academic, bc journalistic sources can indeed be very irresponsible and sloppy in how they use these terms) Yr Enw (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Words has many meaning. I think Islamist is the wrong word. We label al qaeda as jihadist terrorist group or something specific, rather than labeling 9/11 as a islamist attack. It just wrong. that's the truth i believe. Gsgdd (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- RS say it was, the US government says it was, so we say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The U.S. government refers to the attacks as ‘Islamist suicide terrorist attacks,’ so RS follows suit. However, my point is that the term Islamist is being used out of context and potentially violates WP:NPOV. It wasn’t Islamist that caused 9/11, but rather the extremist group al-Qaeda, which practices jihadist terrorism. Therefore, it would be clearer and more accurate to specify this in the lead, rather than using a term with multiple meanings Gsgdd (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- No there is no misunderstanding, their goal was not "al-Qaeda" not their motivation or agenda, it was Islamist. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- How the hell is it
used out of context
? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The U.S. government refers to the attacks as ‘Islamist suicide terrorist attacks,’ so RS follows suit. However, my point is that the term Islamist is being used out of context and potentially violates WP:NPOV. It wasn’t Islamist that caused 9/11, but rather the extremist group al-Qaeda, which practices jihadist terrorism. Therefore, it would be clearer and more accurate to specify this in the lead, rather than using a term with multiple meanings Gsgdd (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did you use an AI to write this? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close this discussion. This has been discussed before and I'm very suspicious that OP is a sock of Dalremnei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) given that they got blocked over the same debate (and potentially socked again in another discussion on the same topic). — Czello (music) 15:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- OPPOSE CHANGE and I agree with @Czello I believe this is a banned user using a sock puppet account to further push their agenda against using Islamist when referring to who carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks. I also want to point out that Islamist is the extremist view of Islam that's not followed by mainstream Muslims. There should be a clear indication of this on Wikipedia to silence this discussion once and for all. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That part is not true. Islamism is just an "ism" for political Islam, and you get non-militant, non-extremist Islamists. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"Flew" vs "which crashed"
[edit]@Беарофчечьня:, I have reverted your change. The version you are changing to makes the sentence more clumsy. It doesn't need to be called out as the first impact, because this is the first impact we're describing in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article was good as it was with "The first impact was that of..." because it clarifies the first attack. Also, "flew" is mentioned just two sentences afterward at: "American Airlines Flight 77 flew towards". That is why something different should be written in the first attack and I prefer the former version. Беарофчечьня (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, we don't need to clarify that it was the first attack. It's the first one we're describing, it's right there. Plus
"The first impact was that of...
is just clumsy English. - If you can convince a consensus of people here that specifying it was the first impact matters, I'd go with:
Ringleader Mohamed Atta flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 am, making it the first plane to impact a building.
— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- It seems we won't reach an agreement here, and that's cool. I guess it's best to let others chime in. Беарофчечьня (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- u should change it to smd lil nga 100.12.168.252 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems we won't reach an agreement here, and that's cool. I guess it's best to let others chime in. Беарофчечьня (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, we don't need to clarify that it was the first attack. It's the first one we're describing, it's right there. Plus
Protection status
[edit]As we approach September and the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, I would like to begin the discussion of protecting this page through the month of September 2024. What I've noticed in recent weeks is a lot of edits that propagate conspiracy theories. Please discuss below this message. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- We don't typically enact protection ahead of time. Some years barely anything happens, others we need protection. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen a small uptick, but nothing concerning, and we deal with it if we need to. The past few years haven't amounted to much. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Hijackers vs terrorists
[edit]@epicgenius you reverted my edit which I made as per MOS:TERRORISM. The reason you cited for the revert is that “it is very well documented that al-Qaeda is a terrorist group”. I agree with that, however, according to the MOS even in cases where such a label is widely used by reliable sources it should be used with in-text attribution. aps (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The lede isn't the place for in-text attribution of that kind, where it would be awkward, wordy and unnecessarily hedged. The lede is a summary, and this isn't a remotely ambiguous event of the kind that the MoS contemplates. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- THis is an issue of a technical violation, but I am unsure its all that contentious. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that 9/11 (and many other events) was terrorism. And I doubt that anyone would in good faith argue that it wasn’t. However, we don’t use this metric to describe other events (see for example [2]) and using it here makes Wikipedia appear biased since, effectively, editors of individual pages determine what is and isn’t deserving of compliance with MOS:TERRORISM. aps (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- There does seem to be a double standard here Omagh bombing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that 9/11 (and many other events) was terrorism. And I doubt that anyone would in good faith argue that it wasn’t. However, we don’t use this metric to describe other events (see for example [2]) and using it here makes Wikipedia appear biased since, effectively, editors of individual pages determine what is and isn’t deserving of compliance with MOS:TERRORISM. aps (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- My edit [3] changed the wording to avoid the awkwardness of in-text attribution.
- Regarding the MoS, is there precedent that some events are considered not remotely ambiguous of the kind that the MoS contemplates and as such appropriate to be described with (relatively) loaded terms? aps (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Simply put, the attribution is in the article itself, see WP:LEDE. The only reason you sometimes see cites in the lede is because people were fighting over the wording constantly, so editors grudgingly included cites there just to make them stop it. The lede itself is supposed to just summarize the cited information contained in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- THis is an issue of a technical violation, but I am unsure its all that contentious. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
105.245.44.11 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
i will add more information
- What information? Slatersteven (talk)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This article propagates an official lie
[edit]At least 6 hijackers were alive afterward. The buildings collapsed due to explosives. Sorgfelt (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all
[edit]Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Wikipedia editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? Moxy🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.
- The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.
- I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. Moxy🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. Moxy🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Pre-Removal Discussion: Dancing Israelis
[edit]Hi, I am the one who added the paragraph on the "dancing Israelis." I think it is highly relevant and it is indeed a real incident. I also included the two publicly-available screenshots of the FBI report on their arrest:
If anybody disagrees with this paragraph I added or its images, I'd like to make this space available for you ahead of time to present your opinions for discussion as I predict disagreement on the topic. ABC News still has a few articles up on the topic, e.g. [4] You can read the FBI report here: [5] Thanks! DivineReality (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class aviation articles
- GA-Class Aviation accident articles
- Aviation accident task force articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- GA-Class Serial killer-related articles
- Mid-importance Serial killer-related articles
- Serial Killer task force
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- GA-Class Suicide articles
- Mid-importance Suicide articles
- Suicide articles
- GA-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- GA-Class Firefighting articles
- High-importance Firefighting articles
- WikiProject Firefighting articles
- GA-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- GA-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- GA-Class Salaf articles
- Unknown-importance Salaf articles
- Salaf task force articles
- GA-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class intelligence articles
- Intelligence task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- GA-Class New York City articles
- Top-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- GA-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- GA-Class New York (state) articles
- High-importance New York (state) articles
- GA-Class Skyscraper articles
- High-importance Skyscraper articles
- WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
- GA-Class Terrorism articles
- Top-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class District of Columbia articles
- Mid-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- District of Columbia articles with to-do lists
- GA-Class September 11, 2001 articles
- Top-importance September 11, 2001 articles
- WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
- GA-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
- GA-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report