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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should we change the infobox photos?[edit]
There was recently a conflict a few weeks ago over the montage in the the infobox. I would like to get everybody’s opinion on the infobox images and if we should change them. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see no need to change them Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- This issue was resolved the other day. The infobox is back to how it should be. No further changes necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC);
- The info box is fine as it is. I see no need for any further changes. David J Johnson (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- This issue was resolved the other day. The infobox is back to how it should be. No further changes necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC);
There are no clear images of an attack in progress.[edit]
The closest we have is a blurry still of American Flight 77 before its collision. There is one image that the caption says is United Flight 175, but it's not. It's an image of its explosion.
Is there any possibility that we could use impact footage and isolate a frame from when Flight 175 was within seconds of striking the tower? Hmm1994 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- So that there's a clear image of the article's subject. Hmm1994 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the point Slatersteven is trying to make is, "How does that better illustrate the article's subject, compared to what we have now?" There doesn't seem to be any real reason to do this. The article's subject is the attacks as a whole, not any single airliner's impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also want to add we know what happened on September 11th. We know both the World Trade Center twin towers were struck. The instant after the impact of United 175 on the South Tower — explosive ball of flame — is sufficient enough. Additionally, as mentioned above, events of September 11th includes more than just the impacts on the World Trade Center. It involves events at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. No change necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think the point Slatersteven is trying to make is, "How does that better illustrate the article's subject, compared to what we have now?" There doesn't seem to be any real reason to do this. The article's subject is the attacks as a whole, not any single airliner's impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- So that there's a clear image of the article's subject. Hmm1994 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Consensus required restriction now in place[edit]
Due to frequent but sporadic edit warring, I've placed this article under an indefinite "consensus required" restriction, the specific of which are visible in the header here, the editnotice at the article itself, and pasted below for visibility. I ask that regular editors here be watchful for violations and conscientious about making new editors formally aware of this contentious topic. Best practice is to notify people if they've violated the restriction and request a self-revert, rather than immediately seeking a sanction. The restriction:
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The infobox images hs been changed without consensus. I just reverted it, but I encourage discussion here. Thanks. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just reverted changes that were made without consensus. Please discuss here. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the use of “islamist” in the introduction and in the “attack type” in the overview is subjective, offensive and unnecessary. the information and impact of the attack will remain the same without that label. pointing towards one specific group will not diminish what happened on 9/11 - their islamic religion had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred.
“The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[f] were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. That morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners scheduled to travel from the East Coast to California. The hijackers crashed the first two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, two of the world's five tallest buildings at the time, and aimed the next two flights toward targets in or near Washington, D.C., in an attack on the nation's capital. The third team succeeded in striking the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania during a passenger revolt. The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people, making them the deadliest terrorist attack in history. In response to the attacks, the United States waged the multi-decade, global War on Terror to eliminate hostile groups deemed as terrorist organizations, as well as the foreign governments purported to support them. Conflicts were fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and several other countries, under this justification”.
the impact is exactly the same, and u will not be marginalising people while trying to send the impact across to the next person. Saturnraindrops (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Are you Dalremnei under a new account? — Czello (music) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- You do know that "Islamist" and "Islamic" are different, right? Have a look at Islamism if you are not familiar with it. Muslims are not necessarily Islamist. While there are some moderate elements within this broadly political-religious movement, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (and others) represent its more extreme manifestation. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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
- 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 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 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