Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Requested move 14 February 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks – per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. In almost every news story, you hear the anchor or reporter say "the September 11th attacks". Even the Memorial in New York City, at The Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania are all the "September 11th Memorial". I've been to the one in NYC, I can attest to that. That is another RM, though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is indeed usually pronounced as "September 11th", but it is usually written as "September 11". As I state above, when speaking, Americans will generally say a Month Day date format with the "th" tacked on, but it isn't usually written that way. At the bottom of the official 9/11 memorial website it says "National September 11 Memorial & Museum". The Google Ngrams also show that the date without the "th" is the most common.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed, it is the "9/11 Memorial" by official terms (I guess in paperwork, LLC, whatever), but is called the "National September 11th Memorial and Museum" in person. I've been there, it was and is incredibly moving and amazingly well done, I don't think there was a dry eye when you left. The "th" is used no matter what. It's not "implied", it is spoken and most Americans (outside of Military), would write a date "Feburary 15th" or "September 11th" or "March 22nd". We almost always include that ending th, st, nd, rd. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01 on February 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Switching to Nuetral. MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:BADDATE are clear. I was not aware of these policies and somewhat disagree, but this article should not be an exception to an established community consensus. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common name as written in reliable sources remains "September 11" (or perhaps 9/11). Its pronunciation is irrelevant. The proposed title also runs afoul of MOS:BADDATE. -- Calidum 15:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Calidum: I've never seen the common name, in reliable sources, written as "September 11", though I admit "9/11" is preferable in most forms of media as it's easier in soundbites. Though the full date is always spoken as "September 11th". Regardless of Wikipedia's irrelevant and any "implied" th, this is the common name with 9/11 attacks as the secondary common name. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:29 on February 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:BADDATE, Wikipedia avoids suffixes like "st" and "th" on dates, so unless there is some very clear indication that we need to do it differently for this topic, we should stick to our usual convention. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: @BarrelProof: Wikipedia's policies and conventions are irrelevant in this case. For us to force something in this case "because we can" is just silly. Wikipedia avoids suffixes, it does not mean that the entire American public avoids them. Our policies and conventions are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and we need to think of the big picture. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:25 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have never seen it written thus, and always heard it called the former Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: @Casliber: You're an Aussie, so that's not surprising. Aussies, Brits, and the like also write dates like 11/9 (or 11 September which is how our Military writes them), which just confuses the crap out of us Americans. :) This could fall under MOS:US. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:15 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ, drop the stick dude. -- Calidum 14:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Calidum: Why? For answering each and everyone of these opposes? Some of these users aren't American, so they wouldn't use the American "st" or "th" standard. Then there are others who are saying "this is the way we do it", which is irrelevant. Others have said "they have never seen it written in this manner", without backing it up. So, no, I won't drop the stick. Your arguements are not all that persuasive nor do they make much coherent sense. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:45 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's called bludgeoning the conversation. Let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per everyone above. I've never seen it written as September 11th attacks and looking online "September 11 attacks" is by far the common name here. I see no valid reason to change it. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: @Davey2010: You're a Brit, I've never saw you all use a th, st, nd, or rd ever. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:45 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)

A) For everything that is holy in this world please stop WP:Bludgeoning people to death! - Replying to each and every reply really doesn't achieve your goal if that's what you're thinking,

B) Being a Brit has absolutely fuck all to do with it .... Sure I rarely use nd, th, etc but just because I don't doesn't mean other Brits don't. If Americans and the general worldwide audience don't use it online then why would Wikipedia?...,

Also serious question - Why start an RFC if you're going to exclude every person who's from the US from it? That's just setting yourself up to fail which you done a great job at doing here. Failing. –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Struck questions to avoid more bludgeoning. Kindly don't reply or even ping me. Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Davey2010: If I didn't respond, I would be "failing" anyway. So, might as well "fail" in dramatic fashion. If Wikipedia wants to do something stupid, Wikipedia can do something stupid. I'm all for it being ridiculed even more. But at least I did my part to address things in this RM, so I don't consider that "failing". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:20 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per reason above. Even in the United Kingdom and many countries worldwide they tend to refer it as "11 September attacks" instead "September 11 attacks" or "September 11th attacks" regardless of their language as non-Americans use DMY format (such as 11. September Angriffe in German, Aanslagen van 11 september in Dutch, Attaques du 11 septembre in French, etc.) Calling them as "September 11 attacks" or 9/11 seems is language bias in another country, even in the UK and Australia, when English is their common language. 36.65.38.154 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. September 11th is how it's usually said, but September 11 is usually how it's written in the United States. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above. This is clearly WP:SNOW snow so I have removed the banner. Wretchskull (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to actually close a RM, you have to do it properly. You can't just remove the template like that. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2021 (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.

Requested move 23 February 2021

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 → September 11, 2001 attacks – In my opinion it would be better move the page at September 11, 2001 attacks to distinguish the page from any future attacks that will take place on 11 September. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support a 6-month moratorium on RMs. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move – there are no other attacks from September 11 of the same scope, so the additional clarification is unnecessary. Moreover, the attacks are often called the "September 11 attacks" with no mention to the year, so we should use that (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (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.

Infobox image

Hello there. Having looked at the images in the infobox, I think the three of the Pentagon at the bottom need to be replaced. They are very unclear, even when they are clicked on to make the image larger and thus I don't think they could be useful to a reader. I suggest changing the images to one or two from this category. Please let me know what you think. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I agree: the current ones are only useful if we want to analyse specifically the dynamics of the crash — which is quite interesting as well, but the infobox is not the right place; those pictures should be elsewhere in the article. As for which ones are to replace the bottom three, I have just taken a quick glance at that category and I found this picture to be one of the most astounding ones, ideal for this purpose: — I will leave the choice of any others at your discretion. LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation?

The citation at "Congressional Record, Vol. 148, Pt. 7, May 23, 2002 to June 12, 2002" lists a page number that is clearly incorrect. It shows a page of 9909 while linking to a book with 1466 pages, so that's clearly incorrect. I've looked online and I am not able to find a full copy of this myself. I assume that the citation is otherwise accurate, at least as far as the source is concerned - just the wrong page is listed. (Maybe it was supposed to be 909?) Assuming the correct page number cannot be quickly found, we should just remove it for now. 192.88.255.9 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong template used. Use {{edit semi-protected}} if you cannot edit the page because of semi-protection. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the reference was added by Clarityfiend with Special:Diff/603421185. The edit summary points to a unspecified request. Searching through the user's contributions, I found Special:Diff/603421358#9/11 deaths of law enforcement officers.

That thread points us to http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/deadliest.html. The URL is not available now, but was archived on https://web.archive.org/web/20140213135434/https://nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/deadliest.html. Unfortunately, this only validates the "72" count. (Interestingly, this reference is now removed but the "72" number is still there, so I wonder whether wp:text-source integrity was damaged.)

Presumably, the "343" claim is supported by the book. As far as I can see, there are no more links to follow.

Pinging Clarityfiend to clarify a bit here. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 16:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, double pinged. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't recall anything about that edit, but I have found the following on page H3312 of the Congressional Record: Mr. Hefley: "As we all know, September 11 stands out as one of the most tragic days in American history. That fateful Tuesday we lost 72 police officers, the largest single loss of law enforcement personnel in a single day in the history of our country." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

343 is referenced in List of the deadliest firefighter disasters in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrected no. to 340. Fox News should never, never, never be counted as a reliable source. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So, apparently this is already resolved? In which @Clarityfiend: please make sure to mark the template as |answered=yes next time around? Or use a script like I do. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they could be waiting for others to mark it as answered. Either way, I think this is indeed answered. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 05:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Final push towards featured article status

As the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaches, I thought (and I'm sure many others concur) it would be great to push for the ambitious yet difficult Today's featured article by the 11th of September to commemorate the event. Would it perhaps be realistic for us editors to try to get this to FAC (maybe peer-review first) and all the way to TFA by the deadline? With many experienced editors and reviewers, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. Wretchskull (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Motive?

Should there be a part in the info box citing Al-Qaeda's reasons for the attacks? What were their motives anyway?--72.42.172.83 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it is already covered in the intro paragraph. David J Johnson (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

But wouldn't a laconic description help people get the idea better?--72.42.172.83 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No, Once again, it is already covered. Please stop this nonsense. David J Johnson (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Why is it that the first table in the section Attacks gives the total number of deaths as 2,765 while elsewhere in the article the number is given as 2,996? Linguist111^talk 21:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The "‡ Unconfirmed" and "‖ Approximated" notes. Whatever the reason they are there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Linguist111^talk 10:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have edited the table to avoid confusion (diff). Linguist111^talk 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Question on the death toll count

Should the death toll include the people that have died of cancer and/or other ilnesses due to 9/11? Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In the strict sense, yes (like in Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster). But it's difficult to determine them. After seeing Casualties of the September 11 attacks I can also answer @Linguist111: question above. 2,751 died in situ, the added numbers were the consequences. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch I saw that there could be up to 2,000 additonal deaths due to ilnesses from 9/11. Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

We should only publish about facts and not on estimations. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

adding a.m. to infobox

In the infobox, please change 8:46 to 8:46 a.m., in order to make the time more specific. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Since it crashed into a field, the exact building intended to be hit by Flight 93 is not decisively known although it has been believed by U.S. authorities that the U.S. Capitol or the White House were Flight 93's potential targets.

(Petition to correct the typo "decively" to the presumed intended word "decisively") 120.17.14.214 (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Done.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

There is a typo in the first sentence of the second paragraph. The letter f is missing from the word “four”.

“On Tuesday morning, our commercial airliners from the northeastern United States were scheduled to land in California.” 2604:3D09:97E:B200:AD62:FFE4:CFDD:5529 (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Chewings72 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

In the first sentence of the third paragraph "The George W. Bush's adiminsitration [...]" sounds strange. It should be either "George W. Bush's administration" or "The George W. Bush administration". JamieFleming (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I reversed a previous edit to the way it was a day or two ago -- "The United States" rather than "The George W. Bush's administration". Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you! JamieFleming (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Geopolitical Impact

I don’t think this article dwells enough on the geo-political fallout vis-à-vis the West. There is no doubt in my mind that the attacks caused a lurch to the right in both the USA and Europe. The liberal order that had held sway was already under pressure given the rise of the right in America after Clinton, however the attacks accelerated the shift. It took Europe longer, but it no doubt had the same effect there. The attacks, and the bungled (re invasion of Iraq) response from the West emboldened Islamic fundamentalists all over the world.

Separately, it lead to a heightened tensions between the West and the Muslim world. The US invasion of Iraq resulted in the deaths of over 100000 civilian deaths, destabilized the Middle East, upsetting the balance of power between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia that remains unresolved, ultimately leading to the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS. Iran emerged as a major actor in the region, shaping anti-West sentiment in tne region and putting pressure on Israel through Hezbollah and the Palestinians.

Further, one can trace much of the root cause of the current refugee/migrant crises Europe faces from ME countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Africa to the 9/11 attacks.

I think these aspects need to be reviewed and documented. What would the geopolitical situation look like had the attacks not transpired?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:2696:8b00:a0fb:ac79:9949:e39d (talk) 16:35, August 11, 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs.

As to your request, we would need reliable sources which discuss the matter before adding that content to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

different flight times

How come timelines have different flight departures and crashes? For instance, the link here has Flight 93 taking off at 8:41 a.m. and crashing at 10:07 a.m. [2] 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend checking the Flight 93 Shanksville Memorial, for perhaps more accurate information about that flight. https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/index.htm Smela07 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Wahabi Islamist" in first sentence

This is an inaccurate term and should be replaced by "extremist." Wahabism is not listed as the motivation for the attacks. Clearly states below it was because of 1) US support for Israel 2) US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and 3) US sanction on Iran. The controversy with the term "Islamist" isn't related to Sunni or Shia. See the article I cited from Politico. Islamist is a political ideology not necessarily tied to extremism. https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/ap-stylebook-revises-islamist-use-160943Rethinkmedia487 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Extremist" is a deliberately inaccurate and imprecise term, so inaccurate that its usage in this context actively avoids communicating information to readers. What is al-Qaeda "extremist" about, exactly? Just being generally extreme? In any case, while I am not the biggest fan of defining al-Qaeda as Wahhabist in the opening sentence, as opposed to the more generic "militant Sunni Islamist" description seen at Al-Qaeda, Wikipedia is not bound by the AP's style guide nor by the statements of Osama bin Laden. Once that distinction is made, much of the rationale for your edit ceases to function.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I provided the AP style guide as an example to share their definition of "Islamist." That term simply means that one wants an Islamic governance structure, but doesn't necessarily mean they are violent about it. Add that to "Wahabi", which just means conservative/orthodox Muslim, and the phrase is quite imprecise. It is basically saying "conservative Muslims that want an Islamic governance structure." Furthermore, it gives it a religious connotation, which their actions are not anymore tied to than the KKK, which does not mention Christianity in its definition (despite the group burning crosses). I agree that using "militant" is more accurate and would suggest combining so it reads "militant extremist group." And similar to the KKK article, add a sentence that says: Although members of Al Qaeda swear to uphold Islam, the group is widely denounced by Muslim denominations. Rethinkmedia487 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wahhabi is simply not the accurate term here to refer to al-Qaeda. Wahhabi Islam refers to a particular strand of Islam that grew out the partnership of the House of Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and went on to develop as a state interpretation of Islam in Saudi Arabia. In other words, it has a very specific historical connotation. Whether al-Qaeda can be considered to have grown out of that atmosphere due to many of its members' Saudi background is debatable, however, al-Qaeda's ideology is decidedly not Wahhabi, which is the most important point. Furthermore, "Wahhabi" is a term that has been nearly denuded of its actual meaning (when not referring to Saudi Arabia): it has been used for the last 100 years either as a) a stand-in for "conservative Islam"; or b) to designate "bad Muslims," Finally, the source that is cited to make the claim (Commins, David (2009). The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. I.B.Tauris. p. 172.) actually says the opposite:

"Because Osama bin Laden and most of the hijackers are Saudi nationals, it was assumed that al-Qaeda is an expression of Wahhabism. That is not the case. Wahhabi ulama have maintained that it is the prerogative of the ruler to determine when conditions warrant jihad."

Simurghistan (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "Wahhabi" is an inaccurate label; the description should probably be changed to "militant Sunni Islamist" or perhaps Salafist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Generation 9/11 film

I just made an article for the recently released documentary Generation 9/11 (film), which tells the stories of seven children of men killed in the September 11th terrorist attacks who were too young to understand what occurred or were not yet born. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Punctuation error

In the lede, there is a missing comma, which I can't fix because the article is locked: "This flight was the only plane not to hit its intended target instead crashing in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am." There should be a comma after "target." --Fashionslide (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Girth Summit _(blether) 12:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"11 Sepember 2001" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11 Sepember 2001. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#11 Sepember 2001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

Please change '19 years ago' to 20 years ago' 2A00:23C4:6410:FB00:CCF2:919D:62E5:CF6A (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done That will automatically update at 00:00 UTC. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What Bin Laden said

"Bin Laden said he had personally directed his followers to attack the World Trade Center"

Cyber Bollix!

"Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism

That quote never says when bin Laden "personally directed his followers". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

45.144.113.217 (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)remove the porn picture of the article pls

 Already done You may need to purge your cache ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

“partial success?”

The article currently states that UA93 was only a "partially successful diversion from target." I disagree with these choice of words. They absolutely were not "partially" successful. The heroic individuals aboard UA93 were 100% successful in their intent to prevent United 93 from reaching the terrorists' intended target of the U.S. Capitol or White House. These brave individuals used the extremely limited information available to them at the time to make the impossible decision to risk and sacrifice their lives (they may have failed to save themselves but they prevented the hijackers from reaching their target). To indicate their sacrifice was anything short of an absolute success sounds wrong. The article is locked for editing but I personally believe this needs to be changed. Please discuss if you agree/disagree. 213.107.66.176 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Amen. 100% agree. Well said. The passengers defied the hijackers and are heroes in every sense of the word. I'm baffled by the "partially" wording. If the target was indeed the White House or the capitol building, they in my opinion saved the country. 63.248.183.81 (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021 (2)

Remove the 2 blank lines at the start of the article, between "For other uses, see 9/11 (disambiguation) and September 11 attacks (disambiguation)." and "The September 11 attacks..." INDT (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done It appears that this has already been done by Vaporwaveon. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Article length

This article is at 78,000 characters, which is in the middle of the Probably should be divided category at WP:TOOBIG. There are certainly some areas that go into excess detail, such as discussion of the remains of the victims, the international reactions section, and the discussion of the war on terror. I'm going to add an editnotice to the article encouraging summary style, and anyone who wants to do some trimming is welcome to. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021 (4)

Remove that grotesque picture!! 156.57.250.82 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021 (5)

Someone has added a photo of an individual actively deficating to this page.

I would suggest removing the image immediately. 2001:56A:7203:C200:2566:8906:17A1:1288 (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 September 2021

Please remove the discussing photos on this page. I don’t even understand how they got here in the first place 109.129.154.124 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Got them, blocked, protected, badimages list, etc. Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Not to be a bother, but I noticed you protected this page to require administrator protection indefinitely. Are you planning to reduce it to ECP once the disruption ceases, or is this truly indefinite? From my point of view, this could just have been a long-term abuser and/or compromised account, but I'm not an admin, so I can't say anything other than speculate. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It's indefinite as in stopping gross vandalism from extended-confirmed accounts in the near term. I'm reviewing a couple of other things, will reduce once I'm confident that we won't have a recurrence. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've pulled it back to ECP. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead collage

Current collage, for comparison

I think the lead collage of the article could be improved. Some of the choices are not the most compelling options available (particularly the Flight 93 remains and the bottom three), the towers impact photo is repeated from the body and partially redundant to the lead photo, and the collage as a whole is a single file, rather than {{Multiple image}}, which makes for a better reader experience by making clicking on an image go to a full-sized version of it.

My proposed replacement is above. I'm going to boldly implement it momentarily, as this article is getting a lot of pageviews today. Here's some rationale behind the choices:

• The top image remains the same, as the sight of the towers burning is the most iconic image of the attacks. File:North face south tower after plane strike 9-11.jpg, which shows the explosion, would be an alternative, except that it's used in the body and its proportions aren't favorable.
• The middle left photo, of the rubble at Ground Zero, is the second most iconic image of the attacks. It represents the rescue efforts and first responders. It is placed on the left, where it works better (as the flag forms a natural border). There were lots of possibilities for this slot; runners up were File:Three New York City fire fighters spraying water on smoldering ruins following the September 11th terrorist attack (29138287400).jpg, File:US Navy 010914-N-1350W-002 fires burning amidst WTC rubble.jpg, File:FEMA - 3886 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-13-2001 in New York.jpg, and File:FEMA - 3913 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-15-2001 in New York.jpg. I'll add one of those to the body, where the rescue section is currently unillustrated. I thought about preserving the photo used in the current collage, but it's unfortunately a little dark.
• The middle right image also remains the same, and represents the Pentagon attack. It's unfortunately not all that recognizable as the Pentagon, especially with the crop needed to align it with the bottom right photo, but I couldn't find anything better. An alternative would be File:Firefighters work to put out the flames moments after a hijacked jetliner crashed into the Pentagon at approximately 0930 on September 11, 2001 010911-M-CI426-051 (cropped).jpg if we wanted to show it burning, but that's even less recognizable.
• The bottom left photo represents Flight 93 and the aviation aspect of the attacks.
• Lastly, the bottom right photo represents the memorialization efforts in the aftermath of the attack and provides a note of closure.

The whole collage is a line shorter than the current one, which is good, as this article has a long infobox. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or comments. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Resolved back and forth during full protection

Acroterion, I spent quite a while reworking the collage here so that it could go live during the anniversary today, and there have been no concerns so far before your revert as part of the mass rollback. Would you be willing to consider undoing that part of your rollback? I'd also appreciate it if you or another admin could add File:FEMA - 3886 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-13-2001 in New York.jpg to the rescue effort section (possible caption: Search and rescue teams inspect the wreckage at Ground Zero on September 13). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Can you give me the diff you'd like to roll back to? I'm unwilling to remove full protection right now, for obvious reasons. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Acroterion, yeah, definitely understandable. I've made the edit in my sandbox here; just copy and paste that. Comparison for reference. Thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I've pulled it back to ECP, so you can go ahead and adjust the collage. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Done. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Why no links to criticism?

There has been a lot of criticism of the NIST report demonstrating that it is contradicted by physical evidence. Why is this not mentioned? Why are there no links under see also to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 conspiracy theories? This criticism is so prominent that it cannot be ignored, whether you agree with it or not. 130.226.230.24 (talk)

Becaue we do not give coverage to wp:fringe theories. Nor do I agree it is prominent, just noisey.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To add on to this, WP:FRINGE says that a "Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." For example, AE911Truth's "claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities", according to their own article, and their membership is a tiny fraction of the overall population. This does not prove "prominence", just that a lot of people are loud and obnoxious about promoting a debunked claim. Furthermore, I don't see how including these links would aid readers' understanding of the factual information presented in the article. We can't link these conspiracy theories, let alone describe them, because of the very fact that they are all unproven or have been expressly contradicted by reputable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021 (6)

Remove vandalism 2600:1700:7E8:9800:0:0:0:B (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What vandalism?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, the issue has been resolved already and relevant revisions deleted. See also the section below. – NJD-DE (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I do wish we would not get edit requests to undo vandalism, as it will be done without one. With an edit request I always assume this is some issue that has been an issue for at least days, not minutes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox time

Why is the time the attacks began as stated in the infobox that of the time Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower? Would it not make more sense to change it to 8:14, the time of Flight 11's hijacking (and the first hijacking overall in the attacks)? People were attacked and died on board the plane before it hit the tower, such as Daniel Lewin and Captain John Ogonowski. They are victims of the September 11 attacks just like everyone else who died after the North Tower was hit. 148.252.129.49 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My theory is since the North Tower was one of the destinations of the terrorists, then the time a plane crashed into the North Tower is what is used as the start time of the attacks. Hopefully the victims mentioned above are included in the death count, as I can see no reason why they should not be. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

what happened

Last time I saw the page it was fine and I wanted to fine tune the page's language. For example instead of saying on that morning I would have said on Tuesday morning but the page is extended confirmed protected. Can someone please explain what happened? I can't see the edits that were made previously with the images some described as offensive. I am hoping now that the editor responsible for the vandalism has been suspended that the page's status can be lowered as I have not attained the XP to edit. Thank you for your time.

Hi IP. There's no expiry set for the extended-confirmed protection, but an administrator might lower it to autoconfirmed level once the spotlight of the anniversary passes. Until then, if you'd like to make a requested edit, you can click "view source" and then the request edit button, which will create a talk page section here similar to the ones above. You can also copy the entire article into a sandbox, make changes there, and then request they be implemented the same way. I'd encourage you to create an account, as while it can take a while to reach extended-confirmed status, reaching autoconfirmed status is pretty quick. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

* {{vandal|Ultima the Hedgehog}} Putting graphic images and blatantly defacing the page. ~~~~ Aricmfergie (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC) This graphic image was removed before. SidChat2048 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Naruto fan1235 (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

pictures

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct Internal Link for Taliban's Emirate (Relevant Article)

A Wikipedian with proper level of access is kindly requested to change Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) on this section and, if possible, any other relevant part of the article. Thanks. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE

There are currently quite a few references in the lead, including a group of three halfway through the first sentence. I don't want to just delete these since many of them look like quality sources, but per MOS:LEADCITE, they shouldn't be in the lead. Is anyone interested in going through and transferring them to the body/bibliography as needed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is one of the few where an exception to MOS:LEADCITE has been necessary due to the constant disruption caused by people who would demand the lead be changed because statements weren't cited. No amount of telling them to read in the article worked, and eventually citing the lead became necessary just so we could have some peace. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried using invisible comments? This seems like precisely the kind of situation they're for.

And if it is necessary to have some citations in the lead, we should at least be smarter about it. The current citations don't seem like they're always citing the most controversial parts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Invisible comments do not work, in my experience. People just bowl right through them.

If you'd like to propose removing specific cites from the lead, feel free. I just forsee us being right back here with another "You can't say X, it's uncited!" a few weeks later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The next step up would be an editnotice, but as that'd apply to the entire article, I'd like to try invisible comments first. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, I've found invisible comments to be utterly worthless. People who want to edit will just ignore them, either intentionally or because it just looks like extra text they're not interested in. Plus, it only helps for people who are editing. A chunk of the disruption is people constantly coming to this page to complain about facts they don't like or claim that X isn't accurate. They never see the comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason you've got that is that the massive stack of banners at the top is leading to banner blindness. I'd suggest moving as many as you can to the banner holder, so that people are more likely to actually read the important ones. Then, if you add an FAQ item about lead citations, people will be more likely to actually read it. And then if a few continue to come here and make noise, it's not a huge bother. Just reply with "read FAQ #3 and MOS:LEADCITE". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, in my experience, "read the FAQ" doesn't work either. The people who do this aren't going to bother putting in effort, they just yell at us for having/not having the content they want in the article, and then complain we're biased and WP:OWNing the article.

If you'd like to try this, I don't object. I just don't think it'll actually help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021 (3)

There is a line under the "Casualties" section that reads The New York City Fire Department (FDNY) lost 343 firefighters, including a chaplain and two paramedics. The word firefighters should be changed to "members" or similar. FDNY did lose 343 members, but only 340 firefighters. As mentioned, the other three where a chaplain and two medics. 100.6.141.126 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sourcing that characterizes the chaplain and paramedics as not being firefighters. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Please do not respond to requests if you do not intend to actually look at them. The reference immediately after this line is "The Unofficial Home Page of FDNY". Ctrl+F "Chaplain" will show you one result, and "Paramedic" will show you two. Furthermore, the top of the article says 340 firefighters with this reference: "Deadliest incidents resulting in the deaths of 8 or more firefighters". National Fire Protection Association.. 100.6.141.126 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@100.6.141.126, is the NFPA a reliable source?. If so, I will gladly update the section of the article. — ChannelSpider (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ChannelSpider: Just about as reliable as you can get in the Fire Service. The NFPA is the gold standard in the U.S.; They set the requirements for everything from sprinkler systems to bunker gear specifications, and a whole lot more. 100.6.141.126 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this may need taking to RSN, the nfpa may well be a professional body, that does not mean it is an RS for who or who is not a fire fighter.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

They are. NIST, a federal agency, would agree enough to cite them in their own reports.

Leech, David P. (June 2015). "A Measure of Domestic Security: Economic Benefits of NIST's Support of Public Safety and Security" (PDF). United States Department of Commerce. p. 7. Adjusted for the deaths of 340 firefighters at the World Trade Center in 2001[...]

Hope that helps. 192.88.255.9 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it has to be an RS for who is a firefighter.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If the federal government isn't reliable enough for you, I'm afraid I can't help you. But The FDNY itself always refers to them as members. So that's what the article should reflect, as the edit request states - 343 members. 192.88.255.9 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Who is opposed to this, and why? 192.88.255.9 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently no one is opposed to this change. I'm re-opening the edit request. 100.6.141.126 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean apart from all those users saying this should not be done?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Above you will see users who asked for a reliable source, of which several were provided. Then nothing happened. 100.6.141.126 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

change the linkless "passenger revolt" text to a link to the passenger revolt section of the "united airlines flight 93" article Loganp23 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (at least not in this way) - wiki links on phrases should be targeted to articles about those concepts, so linking that to an article about "passenger revolts" would be good there, but linking to a section of an article for a specific instance of a passenger revolt isn't our normal convention. This could be reworded, and link to the section, but it should be clear to the reader following that link where it may take them. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" column under "Aftermaths" section

As you may know, "Reactions" sectors or columns, and especially their list format and flags, are despised by many editors as unencyclopedic quotefarms sourced to primary sources such as Twitter. Also, Every major Office holder and politician have mourned the death. Thus, these "Reactions" should be trimmed from the "Aftermaths" section. 2401:4900:44C1:CA63:B62:3931:3073:5F34 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you give example of what you object to?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

PSA:The IP copy-pasted this comment from another article's talk page as some form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS retaliation for a revert on said article. SpinningCeres (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

better map/image needed

Under "Attacks", the section on "Damage" refers to St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, but that is not shown on the image of the damage. It, and all other structures mentioned as damaged, should be included on the image of the damage and marked in the overlay. I found this: http://crimescenedb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/911-04-full.jpg but it is only a map and doesn't show the damage; it is, however, the only image I can find that includes all the structures that were damaged. Dismalscholar (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

I just feel like I needed to point out that in the beginning of the second paragraph, which reads "The first plane to hit its target was American Airlines Flight 11. It was flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 am.", the words highlighted in bold are a redirect, to an article of the tenants in the One World Trade Center, the current building which was opened in 2014. Based on the context of this sentence, I think this redirect should be removed, and instead replaced with a redirect to an article of the tenants in the previous 1 World Trade Center, the building opened in 1973 and destroyed in 2001. I just believe it makes the article more sensical. --Medalpager (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Quite correct, and I simply removed the link, as the original WTC is already linked. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

Hello. The death count says 2,996 people died that day, however I believe that there should also be a note below the death count saying people continue to die today from cancer and other sickness due to exposure while rescuing survivors. They sacrificed, they died, and should be remembered. 76.109.122.155 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 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. Also see WP:MEMORIAL. --Hemanthah (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a link at the beginning of the final paragraph of the lead of this article to another article, Casualties of the September 11 attacks. That article addresses the issue you raise in considerable detail. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately this is not a "Change X to Y" rather it is a request for a small footnote right below the official death count of 2,996 on the main information block. And yes while I am aware that there is a separate page describing casualties, the issue is that most other people do not know it exists, so when they google the attacks and see the death count in the right hand box, they should also be a part below it in parenthesis or asterisk or however you want to form it. As long as people who visit the September 11 attacks page, not the casualties of the September 11 attacks page, and see that more have died as a direct result of the attack after the initial 2,996 people, then that will allow the stories for those who are not currently represented on the figure to know how its long term impacts and not just immediate. They should not have to visit another page to find that information out. And if this is confusing to you then I am sorry I don't know how else to phrase it I just want to see the real story told completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.122.155 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"September 11, 2001" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect September 11, 2001 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#September 11, 2001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we add to the sentence in the "casualties" section to make: Casualties in the South Tower were significantly reduced because some occupants decided to leave the building as soon as the North Tower was struck, and because Rick Rescorla, head of security at Morgan Stanley, defied an order to remain in place and evacuated almost all of the company's 2,700 employees in the South Tower to safety after Flight 11 had struck the North Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

World trade center

Attack 2003:E7:EF00:A203:C576:39DC:405:1673 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What is your comment about?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

remove the parts about Islamists since it paints a bad picture of Islam and it was also proven that Muslims were not the ones who caused 9/11 197.60.95.183 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: What? Maybe read Al-Qaeda Cannolis (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

9/11 memorial pool

The 9/11 memorial pool should not be shown in the Infobox as the photos there are about events that took place on the day of September 11 2001. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2022 - FBI interrogations of Abu Jandal

Hi, on September 17 2001, the FBI was able to confirm the identity of eight of the hijackers during interrogations with bin Laden’s former chief bodyguard, who was the time jailed in a Yemeni prison (the FBI confirmed the names of all hijackers well before, but it's one thing to confirm the names and quite another thing to confirm their al Qaeda membership). From my point of view, I would suggest to add this to the article in the section "5.1 FBI" probably before the sentence On September 27, 2001, they released photos of all 19 hijackers.... I would suggest the following text (but feel free to polish it, I am not a native English speaker anyway). Thanks!

Abu Jandal, who served as bin Laden’s chief bodyguard for years, confirmed the identity of eight hijackers during interrogations with the FBI on September 17. He had been jailed in a Yemeni prison since 2000.
Jo1971 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Blue Lock

Hello, my question with the article is regarding why September 11 is still an extended confirmed protected article and if it will ever return to the protection status it once was? From my research the actor responsible for the vandalism of the article and others has been blocked, yet the page remains protected. Thank you for your time.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the anniversary is past, I've dropped it back to autoconfirmed. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FictiousLibrarian (talk). 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Date is wrong: Maythefourth576 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Maythefourth

What date? Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 11, 2022

I just want to edit the article itself and some conspiracy theories, that some governments in the Middle East were participating in the attacks, although I have to become careful right, because if there's something wrong, it'll be your turn. Takeshi Ishii 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

punctuation

Please add a comma after 8:14 a.m. and a period after attacks. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Done ✅ Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing comma

In the first paragraph of the article: "On the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001"

There should be a comma between Tuesday and September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5230:8880:98DF:4897:3398:D294 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

The section Al-Qaeda contains a couple of errors and does not really use high-quality sources.

• The invasion prompted many Muslims across the Arab World to flock to Afghanistan. There, they organized and formed paramilitary groups, collectively called the Mujahideen. This is just plain wrong. The international volunteers are known as the “Afghan Arabs”, sometimes also the term “Arab Afghans” is used.

Hegghammer, Thomas (2020). The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 515. ISBN 978-0-521-76595-4.

In the Western literature the terms “Afghan Arabs” and “Arab Afghans” are used in roughly equal measure, but “Afghan Arabs” is more logical, because these men were Arabs who had been “Afghanized” by their involvement. Another reason to use “Afghan Arabs” for the foreign fighters is that there is actually an ethnic group in Afghanistan that identifies as Arab, claiming heritage from previous Arab migrations into Afghanistan.

• Osama bin Laden traveled to the central Asian country to volunteer... Afghanistan is commonly defined to be part of South Asia, not Central Asia.

• Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA. Except there's no evidence for this claim – this is what the academic literature is writing. There are of course authors claiming the CIA funded bin Laden, they just do not have any evidence.

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 42–43. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

It’s worth mentioning here that there is simply no evidence for the common myth that bin Laden and his Afghan Arabs were supported by the CIA financially. Nor is there any evidence that CIA officials at any level met with bin Laden or anyone in his circle. [...] No independent evidence of the CIA supporting al-Qaeda has emerged in the four decades since the end of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Hegghammer, Thomas (2020). The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-521-76595-4.

No proof exists of collaboration between the CIA and the Afghan Arabs. No record or interview to this effect has surfaced in the three decades since the Afghanistan war.

Chamberlin, Paul Thomas (2018). The Cold War’s Killing Fields. Rethinking the Long Peace. New York: Harper. p. 554. ISBN 978-0-06-236722-8.

To date, no researcher has produced documentation of direct links between Washington and bin Laden or, for that matter, Zarqawi. The weight of evidence suggests that the CIA and the future leaders of Al-Qaeda and ISIS were not in communication with one another during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.

• Osama bin Laden was not an exception and under the guidance of Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden and al-Qaeda became more extreme. Ayman al-Zawahiri was until 9/11 on the margins of bin Laden's world and he did not "guide" bin Laden.

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

There is no evidence that bin Laden’s key strategic decision to target the American “head of the snake” had any input from the Egyptian militant Ayman al-Zawahiri, despite later claims that Zawahiri was really the “brains” behind bin Laden. Indeed, bin Laden did not involve Zawahiri in the planning of his major operations, including the 9/11 attacks. The troika who founded and ran al-Qaeda was bin Laden at the apex and his two key military commanders, Abu Ubayda and Abu Hafs the Egyptian, both of whom had been on bin Laden’s payroll since the beginning of 1987. They were bin Laden’s men, not Zawahiri’s. Meanwhile, Zawahiri’s obsessive goal was overthrowing the “near enemy” Egyptian regime, a subject that bin Laden evinced very little interest in and that he rarely discussed in his public statements. Instead, the majority of bin Laden’s statements focused on what he described as American and Jewish aggression against Muslims, while his second-most-important topic was his criticism of the Saudi government, in particular for its alliance with the United States.

For more details see also p. 92.

Probably best to rewrite this section. --Jo1971 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jo1971, much of this content—specifically the inaccurate claims that the mujahideen were predominantly Arab and that bin Laden was directly supported by the CIA—was recently added on 4 April by FictiousLibrarian, a problematic editor known for pushing pro-Russian narratives on Wikipedia, using a relatively low-quality Social Justice (formerly Contemporary Marxism) article dated Fall 2001. Alas, I have access to the source on JSTOR (it's brief, totaling eight pages, including one page of citations) and it does not substantiate FictiousLibrarian's summary that "Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA." Instead, the Social Justice article states (accurately, as far as I know) that: "Osama bin Laden had been brought to Afghanistan by his friend Prince Turki, the head of Saudi intelligence. The young bin Laden—tall, handsome, devout, and rich—was the next best thing to the real Saudi prince that the ISI had long requested. In Afghanistan, bin Laden's tasks included building infrastructure, coordinating logistics for the mujahedeen, dishing out funds, and, later, fighting. As one of the leaders of the international volunteers, bin Laden kept track of the other recruits, registering their identities and contact information. From this roster, it is said, emerged al Qaeda." Assuming good faith, it is possible that FictiousLibrarian could have misread that (or similar passages) and thought that the author was stating (or perhaps implying) that "Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA." However, in wiki-parlance I would have to say that the edit fails verification. Accordingly, I have restored the previous long-standing version of this article, while merging two sentences of relevant background information from Soviet–Afghan War. A full rewrite using the sources above could also be welcome, but keep in mind that our focus here is the September 11 attacks themselves—the "Background" section does not need to be massive or fully comprehensive. Finally, FictiousLibrarian's edit included an unsourced assertion that "Al-Qaeda during this time had also undertaken acts of terrorism including the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing," which I mention because our 1993 World Trade Center bombing article does not appear to support this attribution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, thank you. Your restoration removed the errors but in the meantime User:FictiousLibrarian reintroduced some errors again. I will undo the change. In my opinion, this section could be a little more detailed but that's also a matter of taste. --Jo1971 (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Needless to say, if FictiousLibrarian has a case to make for his edits then he should make it here (and also start leaving accurate edit summaries), rather than trying to force them through (albeit with several modifications) despite a lack of consensus, especially on a high-profile Good Article such as this. To be fair, though, he is not responsible for the "central Asian" description, which was added in September 2021 using this Cambridge University Press source (which does support the language, although of course other sources may disagree). Prior to last September, the long-standing version from at least July 2015, when the article was promoted to GA, did not include any geographical description of Afghanistan's location.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My fellow editors. I shall make my case. The origins of Al Qaeda are undisputed. The group emerged from Islamic militants that flooded into Afghanistan following the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1979. It is important to notice the years in which the conflict takes place 1979-1989 which place the conflict firmly in the Cold War. Cold War American policy was such that any and all groups that opposed either the Soviet Union, Soviet backed governments and groups, or groups preaching Marxism-Leninism were an existential threat to the United States. In step with these policies the United States government funneled weapons and aid to these groups. The Mujahideen fighters constitute the group fighting the Soviet Union directly and as such they received American equipment and aid. Although we cannot conclude definitively that al-Qaeda had links to the CIA, we can conclude that weapons funneled into Afghanistan ended up in the hand of al-Qaeda. It was American aid that helped the Mujahideen fighters resist the Soviets in a similar fashion to the Soviet aid given to the North Vietnamese against the United States. We also know that during the Reagan presidency (1981-1989) aid to anti-Soviet and anti-communist groups were heavily increased. The CIA and other agencies under Reagan funded fighters from Afghanistan to Nicaragua. al-Qaeda benefitted from US aid, indirectly. Nonetheless, the United States played a critical role in the Soviet defeat in the Afghanistan War. It would be in the years following that the Mujahideen fighters began to turn against the United States and launched terrorist attacks such as the 1993 WTC bombing, 1998 Embassy Bombings and the 2000 Bombing of the USS Cole. What I am saying is US Cold War policy played a role in the rise of al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups. By aiding them against the Soviets, the United States gave them the equipment and training necessary to wage Guerilla warfare against a superpower, however it would not be the Soviets these fighters opposed in the twenty-first century, it would be the United States. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:FictiousLibrarian, what I haven't really understood, are you proposing specific changes to the article and if yes, which ones? That the U.S. supported the Mujahideen as part of their policy of containment during the Cold War would be a point I would also add to the article. But I would prefer to use academic literature as a reference (there's plenty of it available). --Jo1971 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would be adding this section in the al-Qaeda section of the article. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything in FictiousLibrarian's comments above that is responsive to our concerns regarding his previous factually erroneous edits, or to his ongoing low-key edit war ([3], [4], [5], [6]) on the subject of the lede summary's description of al-Qaeda's plan. I hope this means that FictiousLibrarian intends to cease all such disruptive editing moving forward.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ayman al-Zawahiri is listed in the infobox together with bin Laden as perpetrator. Peter Bergen writes there's no evidence he had any role in planning 9/11 and I do not see a reference for this claim in the article. So I would suggest to remove his name from the infobox.

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

In fact, there is no evidence that Zawahiri had a role in the planning of any of al-Qaeda’s major anti-American attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and 9/11 itself.

--Jo1971 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

9/11

All about 9/11 174.252.130.30 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is, your point? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2022

Item: 1
At: September 11 attacks#Other al-Qaeda members
Old: At the same time, another 17 al-Qaeda members were sentenced to penalties of between 6 and 11 years.
New: At the same time, another 17 al-Qaeda members were sentenced to penalties of between six and eleven years.
Per: MOS:NUM "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." and MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently."

Item: 2
At: September 11 attacks#The four crashes
Old: These fires burned for nearly 7 hours,
New: These fires burned for nearly seven hours,
Per: MOS:NUM "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

Item: 3
At: September 11 attacks#Casualties
Old: 70 were civilians and 55 were military personnel,
New: Seventy were civilians and 55 were military personnel,
Per: MOS:NUMNOTES "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure"

Item: 4
At: September 11 attacks#Casualties
Old: 107 people below the point of impact died.
New: One-hundred seven people below the point of impact died.
Per: MOS:NUMNOTES "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure"

Item: 5
At: September 11 attacks#Interfaith efforts
Old: the percentage of US congregations involved in interfaith
New: the percentage of U.S. congregations involved in interfaith
Per: Article consistency; MOS:US "either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article"

Item: 6
At: September 11 attacks#Alleged Saudi government role
Old: the Obama administration released a document compiled by US investigators
New: the Obama administration released a document compiled by U.S. investigators
Per: Article consistency; MOS:US "either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article"

Item: 7
At: September 11 attacks#Memorials
Old: Since then, the work of art, known in the US
New: Since then, the work of art, known in the U.S.
Per: Article consistency; MOS:US "either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article"

Item: 8
At: September 11 attacks#Congressional inquiry
Old: members of congress
New: members of Congress
Per: Dictionary entry

Item: 9
At: September 11 attacks#Congressional inquiry
Old: redacted material from the Congressional inquiry
New: redacted material from the congressional inquiry
Per: Dictionary entry 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thewsomeguy (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I request permission to add a sub-section detailing the negative domestic indirect effects of 9/11, such as politicians using the tragedy to further political agendas at an unprecedented scale. For instance, Republicans have been suspected of using 9/11 as an excuse to expand the NSA, not in order to protect Americans, but to exercise a higher degree of control over society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.28.167 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@86.122.28.167: Interesting claims, but you'll need to find a good source for them. Ovinus (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Total deaths to July 31,2022

The true death toll is 7,437 this includes deaths from the original attack. Deaths from Sept 12,2001 to July 31,2022 include deaths directly cause by the attacks. deaths related to asbestos exposure, Smoke and concreate dust lung damages. Lung damage from chemicals and fuel burning. The melting of plastic fumes and vapor gas. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done ...Not able to find ANY sources with this total.Moxy- 21:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you don't find any sources. You don't have a government approved need to know to have access to the medical data of the victim's Starting Sept 12, 2001, to July 31,2022.

Injury total

Hmm1994 makes a good point on the number of injuries. Determination of "injury" is somewhat subjective, but the comparatively high 25,000 figure (present in the lead and infobox) is cited to [7]. Have there been previous discussions on this topic? Is there an official government source on injury count? Ovinus (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Injury is a somewhat subjective term as you said, but if I had to speculate on the 25,000 number, I'd say many of those injuries were simply caused by exposure to the huge amounts of smoke and dust in the air during the attacks on the World Trade Center. In the 1993 incident, over a thousand people were injured by a far less severe truck bombing, but if you dig deeper you can see that a majority of those injuries were merely the result of exposure to smoke filling the building. There was far more smoke and dust during the September 11 attacks―both in the towers and later on the ground when they eventually collapsed―and this could possibly account for the extremely high figure of 25,000. Hmm1994 (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I edited the article to just list it as "unknown." We don't know for sure how many were injured in the attacks. Hmm1994 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I edited it say "Unknown - at least 6,000" so we have some kind of number in it. Some other variants that could be used so we have some kind of number in there:

• 6,000 - 25,000
• Thousands
• More than 6,000

9yz (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Crash section image

Is this really the best image of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower we can get? Much of the South Tower is obstructed by the North Tower being positioned closer to the camera, billowing smoke coming from the North Tower's crash zone, the fireball, and what appears to be an apartment building at the bottom of the picture. I propose either of these two photographs as a replacement, depending on whether or not their inclusion on the site falls under fair use. Hmm1994 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Any thoughts on this? Hmm1994 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hmm1994: I would agree on replacing the United 175 photo we have now with one of your 2 proposed replacements. However, getting an image approved for use onto Wikipedia is notoriously.... shall we say, surrounded by red tape. I'll ask the help desk to see whether the images would quality for upload. My guess is that they wouldn't (just because), but we shall see. That Coptic Guy 19:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@That Coptic Guy: I saw that we're unable to use one of the images I suggested, so I had a look through the commons gallery for alternatives and came up with three potential candidates. Thoughts? Hmm1994 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hmm1994: Oh, great! I didn't think of using the commons or already-uploaded photos. Good call. I think the third one captures the impact pretty jarringly. That would be the best replacement in my opinion. That Coptic Guy 14:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Done! Glad we could find a suitable substitute. Hmm1994 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hmm1994 Man... looking more into that photo... what a wild thing to witness. I couldn't imagine what the photographer was thinking. So unbelievably shocking, even 21 years later. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It definitely must've been surreal alright. I remember how at first everybody thought the first crash was just the result of some horrific accident, until the sight of the second plane being deliberately flown into the South Tower confirmed to the entire world that it was anything but. Hmm1994 (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect video title (AA175)

Video titled "American Airlines Flight 175 crashes into WTC 2" should be renamed "United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into WTC 2" Romanian1106 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Hmm1994 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Diagram is incorrect

This graph depicting the attacks on the Twin Towers (featured under the planning subheading on this article) is wrong. It claims that Flight 11 hit the North Tower between floors 94-98 while Flight 175 hit the South Tower between floors 78-84; in actual fact, it was floors 93-99 and 77-85, respectively. I went into Photoshop, did a bit of tweaking, and was wondering if we could replace it with my edited version for the sake of accuracy? Here it is:

Corrected the number of impacted floors.

What do you guys think? Hmm1994 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The diagram is sourced from FEMA's report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds: Most of the diagram is accurate, the problem is how FEMA presented the impact zone. Page 6 of the NIST report, the memorial timeline, and the article on the collapse of the World Trade Center all state that the planes hit floors 93-99 for the North Tower and 77-85 for the South. FEMA lists it as 94-98 and 78-84 for whatever reason. My tweak corrects that error. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I get that. But you're altering an original image from the source, which kinda falls afoul of WP:OR. I'm not sure we can include that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Since I'm here already, I'll try to be useful. I'm uncomfortable with altering an original image from the source, especially for this article.--FeralOink (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Popup image is bin-laden

I'm not sure what to think or do about this, but just wanted to make y'all aware of it. When I hover over any Wikilinks to the article, the image popup is that beauty shot/studio photograph of Osama Bin-laden. Maybe it should be, as he was the most directly responsible person for 9/11. I would prefer that the image be the one in the infobox. I don't know how we control that, what image shows. I thought it would be the first one, the one in the infobox, but clearly not. We should at least consider here on the talk page what image is the most appropriate one for the popup for this article. FeralOink (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The pop-up just pulls the first image in the article, but Infoboxes are technically not included in that calculation. I'm not sure there's a good way around it besides moving another image into an earlier part of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a WP:VP/T issue; the pop-up code should read infoboxes. I don't think we should kludge a workaround by changing the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right, VQuakr about not kludging a workaround and messing up the article.--FeralOink (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Why this image and not this one?

Why does the article use this picture to illustrate the debris field from the two crashes and not this one? The second is more accurate and a lot easier on the eyes as well, since there's at least a hatch in the line to depict the landing gear going behind the South Tower. In the first one, it literally looks like the landing gear emerged from the northeast corner of the North Tower and flew past the South Tower's eastern facade before somehow landing in West Street. Hmm1994 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Fails to mention the CIA’s numerous warnings to the Bush admin.

Sorry if I double posted, I wasn’t logged in. But this article by business insider includes a memo which demonstrates that CIA director Tenet did not “fail to warn” the White House. In fact, he warned them 40 separate times about an impending attack- and the Bush admin dismissed it.

This is crucial information and shows a profound negligence on the White House’s part.

https://www.businessinsider.com/911-commission-memo-declassified-bush-cheney-attacks-bin-laden-qaeda-2022-11?utm_source=reddit.com GonzoTribune (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Reaction of Israel to attacks

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.

---

It would be relevant to include a quote by the Prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, which is "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq". This is from a Haaretz article from 2008. Haaretz is a respected Israeli newspaper if you are not familiar with them. Aurela111 (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Why should we include it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

because it would be relevant Half-kratos21 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2023 (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.

Assassination Attempt

WP:ONUS is clear it is the person who wished to add content that needs wp:consensus on their side. I have not seen one RS say this was anything other than a terror attack, not a targeted assassination (that failed). This should be reverted until the is a consensus to add it, that is how wp:brd works. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. We'd need reliable sources indicating that the (supposed) targeting of the White House was in fact an assassination attempt. If all we know is that Flight 93 was heading for one of two places - the Capitol or the White House - and no sources specifically say Bush (or someone else) was the target this is an inappropriate category. Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Two users have now objected, no argument has been made in support of this edit, I will now revert. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Straight from this article under the subsection of Attacks "The four crashes". It states "In an April 2002 interview, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who are believed to have organized the attacks, said Flight 93's intended target was the United States Capitol, not the White House. During the planning stage of the attacks, Mohamed Atta (Flight 11's hijacker and pilot) thought the White House might be too tough a target and sought an assessment from Hani Hanjour (who hijacked and piloted Flight 77). Two sources used here:

• Fouda, Yosri; Fielding, Nick (2004). Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Terrorist Attack the World Has Ever Seen. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 978-1-55970-717-6. Retrieved March 18, 2016.
• Summers, Anthony; Swan, Robbyn (2011). The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 403. ISBN 978-1-4000-6659-9.

Stated in lead of the article: "The fourth and final flight, United Airlines Flight 93, flew in the direction of Washington, D.C. Alerted of the previous attacks, the plane's passengers attempted to gain control of the aircraft, but the hijackers ultimately crashed the plane in a field in Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania, near Shanksville at 10:03 a.m. Investigators determined that Flight 93 was targeting either the United States Capitol or the White House."

From the Flight 93 article under the subsection Aftermath "Possible targets":

"The intended target of Flight 93 has never been definitively confirmed. However, investigators have said there is high probability that the most likely target was the United States Capitol."

"Before the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Osama bin Laden, and Mohammed Atef developed a list of potential targets. Bin Laden wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon. Sheikh Mohammed wanted to strike the World Trade Center and all three wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets. Bin Laden told 9/11 planner Ramzi bin al-Shibh to advise Mohamed Atta that he preferred the White House over the Capitol as a target. Atta cautioned bin al-Shibh that this would be difficult, but agreed to include the White House as a possible target and suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternative in case the White House proved too difficult. Eventually, Atta told bin al-Shibh that Jarrah planned to hit the Capitol. Atta briefly mentioned the possibility of striking a nuclear facility, but relented after the other attack pilots voiced their opposition. Based on an exchange between Atta and bin al-Shibh two days before the attacks, the White House would be the primary target for the fourth plane and the Capitol the secondary target. If any pilot could not reach his intended target, he was to crash the plane."

To have Flight 93 attack either the White House and Capitol Building is intended to kill members of the government like that of elected officials. Therefore, the plot with Flight 93 was to assassinate them. Since 93 never reached Washington it failed. Thus, failing to reach meant it failed to assassinate. And majority of the assessment from the sources all point to the Capitol building as the intended target. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I'm here, I'll offer some of my own thoughts. In a sense, I can see how it might be considered an assassination attempt. No matter where United 93 was going, the fact that it was aiming for a federal government building in D.C. obviously means that people in the US government were targets. It could’ve either taken out the President if he was in the White House or members of Congress. Granted, the President obviously wasn’t there at the time and evacuations would’ve been ordered for the Capitol and the surrounding area before United 93 even got near. They would’ve destroyed it no doubt but the casualties on the ground would’ve been minimal. Regardless, the intentions of the four hijackers aboard that plane were clear as day; they were there to commit mass murder no matter what the cost. Hmm1994 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And also after The Pentagon was struck, D.C. was on lockdown and Congress was evacuated as it was clear from the government that was not an accident and intentional to target government offices. World Trade Center was an attack on the economy, Pentagon was the military, and 93 was to be an attack on the government/political infrastructure. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS, you are not supposed to read content until YOU have consensus. You should self revert and wait for wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And yet the articles uses the exact sources confirming the assassination attempt's failure. You are just cherrypicking and yet you haven't provided anything to the contrary than Wikilawyering. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That is irrelevant (and untrue, do any of the sources use the word assassination? (see wp:v), you should not reinsert material without wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Any follow up on this? Hmm1994 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Article intro strangely ignores debacle in Afghanistan

I added a sentence in the intro about how the U.S. failed in Afghanistan but it was reverted.

I don't really understand. The whole Afghan war happened because of 9/11 attacks, isn't it relevant how it turned out? Reading it now one would think it was some sort of success because bin Laden got killed. When in reality, right as I type this, al-Qaeda sans bin Laden is in Afghanistan just like they were before 9/11. The whole thing was a failure.

Am I wrong? CJK (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

To put it simply:

9/11 is critical to understanding the War in Afghanistan, therefore it's relevant to the article about the War.

The War is not directly relevant to the events of 9/11, therefore it's not relevant to add to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm not sure I really agree. If that's true, shouldn't the entire third paragraph of the intro be deleted? CJK (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no, because identifying the organization behind the attacks & the elimination of its planner is directly relevant to the events of 9/11. The fact the US stayed in the country afterwards in an ill-planned occupation is an unfortunate aside, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. But the U.S. wasn't occupying Afghanistan for no reason, it was to ensure the country did not again serve as a base for al-Qaeda like before 9/11. Now al-Qaeda is back just like before. If a Nazi insurgency took back Germany after World War II would mentioning that in World War II articles be an "unfortunate aside"? CJK (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a much more cynical take on why the occupation occurred, but that's all WP:OR, which we shouldn't be engaging in here.

Again, I think that it's relevant to the article about the war to mention 9/11, but I don't think the war itself is directly relevant to this article. If other editors come in and disagree, I'll abide by consensus, but I don't expect that to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the occupation had nothing to do with 9/11 should be seen as controversial at best. Regardless of what any of us think, U.S. leaders are on record explaining why we were in Afghanistan and the explanations had everything to do with 9/11, terrorism, al-Qaeda, etc. Here's a speech by Obama in 2009. [8] Even if they were lying, that was the official line (at least before Trump/Biden) and it should be taken seriously.

Again, the article intro mentions the initial invasion, plus the fact bin Laden was killed ten years later. So why not the conclusion of that war as well? Reading it now the reader would be under the impression that the fuss was all about bin Laden personally and not the broader issue of Afghanistan being a safe haven. CJK (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not say it had "nothing to do" with 9/11. You're reading too much into it.

U.S. leaders are on record explaining why we were in Afghanistan

Yes, which is relevant to War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). But not directly relevant to the events of 9/11 itself, hence my reluctance to include it in this article.

The initial invasion + death of bin Laden are directly related to the attack itself, as the entire point was to get back at the guy who led the plan of attack. The occupation was not, and had a large number of political factors involved. We didn't have to stay there to deal with the 9/11 attacks, the occupation occurred for a number of other reasons, mostly financial and political.

But we're going in circles here, making the same points over and over. Let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree. The point of the Afghan war was not "to get back at the guy who led the plan of attack" but to establish an Afghanistan free from anti-American terrorism. Bush said as much in his ultimatum to the Taliban. [9] The idea that the U.S. should have just handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the initial invasion strikes me as ludicrous, but either way it is an assertion of a particular POV that should be avoided in this article.

How about something like U.S. forces remained in Afghanistan for the next 20 years, ostensibly to prevent al-Qaeda from returning, but were withdrawn under President Biden in 2021. The Taliban and al-Qaeda subsequently retook control of the country. CJK (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The invasion of Afghanistan was a reaction to (but nothing to do with) 9/11. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Not what I said or argued. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hence why it was indented as a reply to the POP. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Misread the indentation, apologies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Any specific points I could make have already been made by HandThatFeeds, so I'll just say I'm also not seeing the direct relevance; going into such specifics about the war is something that, to me, seems tangential to feature in the lead section for this article. Hmm1994 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Memorial picture Infobox

• 

I don't think the 9/11 memorial should be shown in the infobox as the pictures are about the events that took place on September 11th 2001, and rather could be added to the memorial section instead. September 11 attacks#Memorials --Aaron106 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Hmm1994 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• 

Hmm1994 We would need about a replacement picture of 9/11 we could use to replace the memorial. Any picture from here do you like? Aaron106 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Aaron106 - I think a photo depicting the fireball from 175's impact would be a good one. The one in that gallery you have is taken from a very obstructed angle, so I was thinking either this shot or the cropped version of it. The other alternative I was thinking of is perhaps a shot depicting the collapse of either tower, since that isn't actually shown anywhere in the actual article despite being one of the defining moments of the day. Hmm1994 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm1994 I'm fine with whatever one you pick Aaron106 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Body count

How many were actually killed in the attacks? This page's infobox claims 3,013 lives were lost but everywhere else seems to go with a figure of 2,996. 109.78.173.137 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

One is the number of victims, and the other is the number of victims + the attackers. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Still doesn't add up. The leading paragraph in this page states that there were 2,977 victims + 19 attackers, which only brings us to a total of 2,996. 109.78.173.137 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I think what may have happened is that 19 was added twice. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

2996+19=3015, not 3013. Something else is going on here. The Crime In the United States (CIUS) report for 2001 tallied a total of 3047 victims, plus 19 hijackers. Moral of the story, nothing was consistent.

Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec5.pdf INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Fatalities related to the Attacks

Under the Section "Investigations>>FBI", the very last paragraph is a bit misleading when it cites source [412]. The wikipedia article says "The FBI did not record the 2,977 deaths from the attacks in their annual violent crime index for 2001." The report *did* fully tally those deaths, but in separate tables from the rest of the data, in an entirely separate section of the report (section V, pages 301-307 of that section). This Wikipedia article correctly quoted the report when it said "the FBI stated that 'the number of deaths is so great that combining it with the traditional crime statistics will have an outlier effect that falsely skews all types of measurements in the program's analyses.' ", but they didn't just delete the data from the report, but rather quarantined it from the rest of the data so that it didn't unfairly skew the results. It should also be noted that the way the report bundled the causes of death together: the report classified *all* of the deaths related to the attacks (minus the 19 hijackers, of course) as murder, *including* those who died by jumping: "UCR Program has classified those deaths for the purpose of presenting these data as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" (page 303 of the report). I found the text for section 5 (pages 301-314) of the CIUS 2001 report--that wikipedia cited as [412]--at the following URL: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec5.pdf Also, for reference, source [412] as cited in this wikipedia article: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/toc01.pdfINSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, im seeing that that report tallied 3,047 total deaths, which is different, not sure why the discrepancy is there. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I became a confirmed wikipedia editor recently, I went ahead and edited this. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Connection between 9/11 and war on terror

How do we define “part of” in the phrase “part of the War on Terror”? Is 9/11 considered to be part of the War on Terror? Someone edited saying that because 9/11 led to the war and caused the war, and didn’t happen as a wartime battle or attack, that it’s not part of the war. But I can also see it as being part of the war because it was the precipitating event. I can see it either way, I’m neutral about it. Just wanna throw this out there and see what we’ve got. Opinions? Thoughts? Perspectives? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: I would strongly regard 9/11 as not being a part of the War on Terror. The 9/11 attacks were the inciting event that provoked the War on Terror to begin as a response, and were therefore not a part of the War themselves, especially since there was no military conflict during the attacks, meaning they cannot be viewed as a "battle". The infobox used to not include the War on Terror until May 2021, when it was added with no explanation. I would strongly support removing this from the infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks were the seminal event that provoked the US into launching the War on Terror. I wouldn't classify it as part of the War on Terror however the actions taken by the US government following the attack such as the Afghan War, establishing the Department of Homeland Security, and the PATRIOT Act would absolutely constitute being part of the War on Terror. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also say that 9/11 is definitely not to be regarded as part of the war, but the major (or at least a major-) cause. A supporting example to this is, that the Defenestration of Prague and the assasination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand are not generally seen as part of the Thirty Year's War or WWI, respectively. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

Missing word: "Similar pre-impact evacuations were carried out by companies such as Fiduciary Trust" 149.86.189.14 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WTC 21-632.TIFF

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WTC 21-632.TIFF wrongly labelled as Public Domain

This picture was seemingly taken by Lyle Owerko, but the picture itself is tagged as "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government]] supposedly by an employee of the NIST and "released" because of a FOIA (which has nothing to do with being public domain or not). Is there any evidence that the picture actually is in the Public Domain? Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't verify whether that image has been CC licensed by Lyle Owerko. I do know the NIST drop has a readme note saying that all of the images are copyrightable by the owner. In fact, a NIST report has copyright marks on the images used including Owerkos. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There's actually loads of pictures by him on the commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MediaSearch&search=%22Lyle+Owerko%22&type=image - This might be bigger than one photo. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

So, Lyle Owerko gave NIST permission to release his photo with the caveat that he retains ownership of the copyright. Am I correct? Hmm1994 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be my interpretation of the NIST license file that was with the report investigation. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Erasure of Jacobin Reporting

I added content from Jacobin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1156612334. But the content has been erased. Jacobin is on the list of approved sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and I should be able to use it. [10] [11] Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And the same argument applies here, as in every other place you have tried to use it for statements of fact, it is OK for attributed claims, not for statements of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not what "generally reliable" means on the list of approved sources. It says that " The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." and "Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing".

Why do you argue that we should exclude such a reliable source? I am unconvinced. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chances last a finite time - Please read the FAQs at the top of this talk page. It states "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." DDMS123 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That isn't what Jacobin says. This is a source on Wikipedia's list of approved sources that calls the report "A recently unearthed bombshell court filing". Even though the bombshell filing has been "studiously ignored by the media and political establishment" the reporter says that "The agency then worked in concert with the Bush administration to cover all this up, with each using the screwup to launch several foolish wars, funnel more power and resources to themselves, and go on a spree of yet more lawbreaking." It is important to tell readers that "instead of the Saudi government, it was the United States’ own intelligence agency that played the leading role in shielding the 9/11 hijackers from detection and unwittingly facilitating their crime, all because of the agency’s extreme secrecy, and because it was acting outside the bounds of the law — far from the first or last such instance in the CIA’s history." when a source that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine) "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" says so. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that later in the article, the author states, "Though far from definitive, these allegations line up with theories about the lead-up to September 11 that have long floated around...". That statement still levies that Wikipedia should still refrain from giving undue weight to a theory that is far from proven. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

👌 Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not, see wp:undue and wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not what? Not arguing that we should exclude coverage from this reliable source? Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No, try reading what I have written, here and elsewhere more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We are not "entirely exclud[ing]" Jacobin as a source. The point is that this citation to Jacobin does not fit RS with regard to this article.

The Jacobin source credulously repeats a conspiracy theory. The fact that other sources have not deemed this conspiracy theory worthy of note should speak volumes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Jacobin CAN be used as a reliable source but here it is an outlier and that is why it’s not appropriate in this instance

As a reader of Wikipedia the proposition Jacobin makes I.e. “The disclosures suggest that it was the United States’ own intelligence agency that played the leading role in shielding the 9/11 hijackers from detection and unwittingly facilitating their crime.” and the idea that the CIA then tried to cover it up ….seems quite credible to me - but while I think it’s possible I wouldn’t believe it based on this one source. I’d want more. If there are no more I wouldn’t view it as encyclopaedic. If I’m reading Wikipedia I want encyclopaedic it’s up to the editors to make sure (as far as they can) that it is i don’t want to wade through stuff in an article that is little more than speculation. I want stuff I can check out via the cited references

I hope that helps you understand the opposition of the other editors to the inclusion of this material Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Jacobin source is actually a book review where it describes the book as "speculative" and "conjecture". I don't see how it's reliable for the purposes of this content and article. At best, it's reliable for the opinions of the author, Branko Marcetic but given the vast array of reliable sources, there's no point in scraping the bottom of the barrel. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

https://jacobin.com/2023/05/cia-fbi-911-hijackers-cover-up-bush-media is not speculative and not conjecture. Branko Marcetic is a great writer who tells the truth, but the same US government-aligned mainstream media that was Manufacturing Consent for the war in Iraq ignores his thorough reporting on things they do not want you to know about. Chances last a finite time (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that this source is at loggerheads with the way you wrote, it does not say its true, it says "if it's true", you represented it as if it was a fact, not supposition (thus it also fails wp:v). I advise you to drop this, edit in less contentious areas, and learn how we do things. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chances last a finite time: "Speculative" and "conjecture" are quotes directly from the article. Please stop wasting everyone's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

Please correct this ungrammatical sentence

After delays in the design of a replacement complex, the One World Trade Center began construction in November 2006 and opened in November 2014.

as follows

After delays in the design of a replacement complex, construction of the One World Trade Center began in November 2006; it opened in November 2014.

Thank you.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:94C0:729E:C693:3BC1 (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done DDMS123 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Nine eleven" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nine eleven has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 28 § Nine eleven until a consensus is reached. A smart kitten (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

Additional information to include: The profile of General Timmons recounts that on the morning of September 11, 2001, she was the first officer on United Airlines flight 23 preparing to take-off from New York’s JFK Airport bound for Los Angeles. The plane had already pulled away from the gate and was taxiing down the runway when the airport was shut down and the crew was ordered to secure the cockpit.

Timmons confirmed that as the pilot grabbed the crash ax, she jumped from her seat and started barricading the cockpit door. From the other side of the barricade the cabin crew relayed their concern about four young Arab men in first-class who became agitated when the take-off was cancelled, and fled from the plane when it returned to the terminal. Box cutters and Al Qaeda documents were later found in their luggage.

Timmons, the pilot, and the rest of the crew were repeatedly questioned by the FBI, though the findings were never shared. The pilot concluded that Flight 23 would have been the next plane hijacked by terrorists if the airport shutdown order had been delayed. Jdriesen (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Mainly because this isn't a proper edit request: simply pasting verbatim text from a citation is not sufficient; you need to write out what you want added to the article in your own words. Also, this topic has been discussed several times in the talk page archives, but never added to the article. Nobody ever said, "absolutely don't add this", but neither was there much support on the basis that all we have are statements from Captain Manello and First Officer Timmons which are highly speculative.

I found four other sources in case someone else stumbles on this and finds them useful. I'm also aware that there's a recent documentary on TMZ about this.

References

Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No mention of controversy?

"Truther" doesn't come up in a google search? What flaring nonsense. Hatting trolling. Bishonen | tålk 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does this article not mention the controversy surrounding the explanation of what actually happened? This article presents one version of events only: the version supported by the US government. If you compare this to the entry on the assassination of JFK, also embroiled in controversy, very soon after the official government portrayal of what happened there is a clear paragraph about the fact that this explanation is highly controversial on the subject of who the killer was, as any honest reporting of the story of these events should have included. So why is the same type of information included here as well? I can't even believe I have to ask this question. Please explain this dishonest portrayal of what happened. If someone does not add this, I will add it!RPeel (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) The article isn't a forum for conspiracy theories, that is longstanding consensus. The JFK assassination article is plagued by all sorts of CTs, but that at least has a cultural basis. The Truther narrative has more in common with modern conspiratorial obsessions like QAnon and chemtrails, which are given no countenance on Wikipedia, and any inclusion in the main article has been soundly rejected on this talkpage. That is also why there are active contentious topics sanctions on this topic, of which I've advised you. We have stand-alone articles on the conspiracy theories - see 9/11 conspiracy theories. We get annual attention of this kind in the weeks leading up to 9/11, please don't waste volunteer time, we've heard it all before. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Wow, your reply is stunningly arrogant. "Please don't waste our time, we've heard it all before." Who are you, anyway? If wiki is really an open document, then at the very least you need a much better reply that what you've given. Otherwise, you come off as being corrupt. How about offering a "forum" for accuracy and completeness? Your position is not only arrogant but ignorant. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" implies it is an inferior and inconsistent explanation for particular events, when in fact many such alternative explanations are more well thought-out and reasonable than what is pushed onto the public by official means. The government version is also, literally, a conspiracy theory: people said to have been members of Al-Qaida conspired to execute this colossal event. It is not acceptable for anyone to simply write off the worldwide, well-documented criticism with the Bush Administration's very own "conspiracy" theory on 9-11 by referring to that criticism as mere conspiracy theory. By presenting the disjointed story put forward by the US government simply as fact, with no mention of the existence of the very strong disputes of those so-called facts is not only dishonest but it leads to ignorance for younger generations who did not live through it and may not know that this government story is hotly disputed. What wiki is doing in this case is rubber-stamping the "winner's view" of history, which by definition is suspicious and corrupt. And the 9-11 conspiracy theories entry in wiki is not enough because one has to know to look for it. The fact is that on a global level, very few people outside of the USA believe the US government story that you've chosen to prop up here, and in the US, a large enough percentage of the population do not believe it either, so your completely one-sided portrayal here is a bit of a joke, in addition to being unwise in the harmful effects it can have on those unaware of the controversial nature of the story. As for JFK, you say "the JFK article is plagued" so is it the article that is plagued? If so, why not remove that plague? I think you mean that the understanding of the events of JFK's murder is plagued by the existence of differing explanations, again, due to the fact that the official story is inconsistent and does not accord with witness testimony and other evidence. What do you mean by "cultural basis"? Additionally, the "Truther" narrative is not something I'm familiar with nor does that expression come up in a google search. 2A02:AA16:5780:6780:8822:669D:E628:A13A (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying source of information on this entry

If the administrators of wiki are not willing to do what makes sense, which is to include information on the FACT that the reporting around what really happened is extremely controversial, then might I suggest at the very least that in the opening description, a link to the so-called "conspiracy" page for 9-11 is offered, such as "The facts of the events are quite controversial. More on that can be found here (link)" Additionally, it would also be fair to begin the entire entry this way: "According to the Bush Administration,..." RPeel (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also see 9/11 Commission, which was not "the Bush Administration," and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

trying to respond to Bishonen

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.

---

When I said I could not find any reference to "truther narrative" I meant that literally: I searched for 'truther narrative' but did not find that specific phrase. I did not search for "truther" alone until today. I see what that means. Fine. I had never heard that before because I am not someone who spends his time roaming the internet on such topics, and I am not an administrator at wiki who has, like you, been up and down this ladder many times before. A bit more respect to those of us "normal" users who from time to time offer a helping hand would be nice to see from you instead of your rude scorn. RPeel (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we use this term in the article? Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2023 (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.

Firefighters killed

the firefighters listed as killed is 343, it was 344 343 FDNY and 1 NYFP

https://www.firehero.org/fallen-firefighter/keith-m-roma/ 50.48.132.255 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2023

Add that my grandma was in New York City when this happened and that she was 45 (she was born on 11/18) and her name is Debbie Alvey (I know you're probably not gonna add this.) VinnyFarmer88930423 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. We won't add it. Simply being in New York that day is not significant. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

9/11: Life Under Attack film

Yesterday I watched on Dutch television the 2021 film documentary: “9/11: Life Under Attack” see IMDB profile, with only amateur footage of the day of the attacks.I was impressed. As one of the better 9/11 documentaries, also according the references provided, I was surprised that it doesn’t have a Wikipedia page. I think this documentary deserves it to get its own page. If you don’t know the documentary; you should watch it ;). See here some references: 109.37.150.86 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Thanks for sharing this. Being Dutch, that's probably why it didn't get much notice here. Might need to find a Dutch-speaking Wikipedian to look into this & figure out what we can use to add to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: thanks for your reply. Interesting you are saying that, as I assumed it was also released in other countries looking at the many reviews from the United Kingdom (of 2 years ago and previous year) and because it’s an English-language documentary of 2021. I see the origin according to IMDB is UK, USA, France and the Netherlands. But only the Netherlands as a specific release date; but two years after the original release date. 109.37.150.86 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

343

On 9/11 343 FDNY members perished. 340 of them were firefighters, 2 were paramedics, 1 was a chaplain. the number 343 is very important and is what should be mentioned on the wiki page 173.3.10.96 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It is extremely important that Wikipedia also recognizes all members of EMS that perished on that day. They dedicated their lives in service and that should be recognized the same as other first responders. 173.3.10.96 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well then add it! 104.187.66.104 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

CNN reports that 2983 people passed

I was watching CNN 10 and the person working at the museum said that 2983 people died is that an error ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Might depend on context. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

im just confused on who to trust ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We cant answer that, this is not a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want precision, say "died", not "passed". HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

tomato tomato ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Tomato always means tomato. Died and passed can mean very different things. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

American airlines flight 11 hit the first tower. not flight 77. 192.189.40.130 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Antandrus (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I also took a look and don't see where the error is. As we've had two sets of eyes on it I'm deactivating this template for now. Left a talk back on the IP's talk page with instructions how to reactivate this tag if needed. Bestagon ⬡ 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Islamist" suicide terrorist attacks

Should the lead say, "The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11, were four coordinated Islamist suicide terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001" with or without the use of Islamist. I persoanlly think it should as it gives the reader an idea of the motive from the very first line.78.157.120.208 (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It was there for a while, but removed yesterday with this edit. We just have to get the nuance right, i.e. Islamist or radical Islamist vs Islamic, etc. Antandrus (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes the motive should be there in the first line and this clearly called Islamic ,Islamist comes second and and this should be called 2001 Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States short description .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Islamist" is now reinserted. Marginataen (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen Why did you remove "radical" from the article description? Don't you think it's a good idea to clarify that such a heinous act is not typical among ordinary muslims? Oktayey (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you also want to do change the first sentence to "radical Islamist"? Ordinary muslims adhere to Islam (adjective from Islamic), not Islamism (adjective from Islamist). Marginataen (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is is fine see no need for change clearly WP:RS call it Islamic or Islamist and Islamist is fine.We cannot WP:CENSOR material for Political correctness.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

I want to change where it says terrorist attacks are suicidal attacks when not all 9/11 type attacks have to include suicide . I feel this is a necessaries change to make. 2605:B100:950:77B6:5D99:96AD:EC5:9E29 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the 9/11 attacks – the ones that happened in 2001, which this page is about – were all suicidal in nature. HouseBlaster^talk 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Making a series?

I think there are so many sub-articles about this attack that I would like to suggest making an article series about the September 11 attacks. Thoughts? --Marginataen (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

Add links to al-Qaeda in this paragraph:

Within hours of the attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency had determined that al-Qaeda was responsible. The United States formally responded by launching the war on terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which rejected the conditions of U.S. terms to expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and extradite its leaders. The U.S.'s invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty—its only usage to date—called upon allies to fight al-Qaeda. As U.S. and NATO invasion forces swept through Afghanistan, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden disappeared into the White Mountains, eluding captivity by Western forces. Although bin Laden initially denied any involvement, in 2004 he formally claimed responsibility for the attacks. Al-Qaeda's cited motivations included U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq. The nearly decade-long manhunt for bin Laden concluded on May 2, 2011, when he was killed during a U.S. military raid after being tracked down to his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan continued for another eight years until the agreement was made in February 2020 for American and NATO troops to withdraw from the country, and the last members of the U.S. armed forces left the region on August 30, 2021, resulting in the return to power of the Taliban.

Here it is with links to al-Qaeda:

Within hours of the attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency had determined that al-Qaeda was responsible. The United States formally responded by launching the war on terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which rejected the conditions of U.S. terms to expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and extradite its leaders. The U.S.'s invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty—its only usage to date—called upon allies to fight al-Qaeda. As U.S. and NATO invasion forces swept through Afghanistan, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden disappeared into the White Mountains, eluding captivity by Western forces. Although bin Laden initially denied any involvement, in 2004 he formally claimed responsibility for the attacks. Al-Qaeda's cited motivations included U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq. The nearly decade-long manhunt for bin Laden concluded on May 2, 2011, when he was killed during a U.S. military raid after being tracked down to his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan continued for another eight years until the agreement was made in February 2020 for American and NATO troops to withdraw from the country, and the last members of the U.S. armed forces left the region on August 30, 2021, resulting in the return to power of the Taliban. Travish07 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

al-Qaeda is already linked to in the info box, and the first sentence of the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I was just at that part of the article, and had to scroll back up to go the page. I know it's a very minor complaint, I guess I just don't see any downsides, but then again, I've never ran/edited a wiki before. Travish07 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We also have a concept called overlinking. We don't want paragraphs to have so many links it overwhelms the reader, so sometimes that means we don't directly link something if it's covered elsewhere in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, no problem. Like I said, I'm new to editing wikis, so I wasn't aware. Thanks for linking the reason! Travish07 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Context of American imperialism

Following the precedent set by the article on the Hamas-Israel war of 2023, WP is obliged to add a separate section on how the attacks arose in reaction to US imperialism, citing some of the many pundits, officials, and academics who have articulated that view. It should also offer a sympathetic portrait of the militants who hijacked planes, explaining the sources of their despair and irresistible anger. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that can support the concept, and we can. That said, no page is "obliged" to maintain parity with any other page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. NPOV implies a uniform standard, and uniformity creates parity. The critics of US imperialism and military expeditionism, including in Muslim majority countries, are too numerous for even a “short list.” It is staggeringly obvious that a lack of sources is not the issue. The issue is that American outrage at efforts to justify 911 would be more consequential that Jewish outrage at efforts to justify October 7. If you disagree, then do the experiment. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No it says we give all relevant views expressed in RS due weight, so present some RS giving the hijackers positive coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources backing the assertion. The idea NPOV means we have to be flat & uniform throughout the encyclopedia is a massive misunderstanding of said rule.

Don't come in here and demand we do the the work for you. If you want to propose a specific change, put in the effort. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

“Victim Names” section: “shot and killed”?

The Victim Names section begins with “There were many people that were shot and killed, and witnessed the event.” It is unclear what the author means by “shot and killed,” and there is no citation to clarify its meaning. Does anyone have any additional information on this section? BrokeTheInterweb (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It was vandalism. It's gone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive type of attack list in infobox

In the infobox at the top of this page, the type of attack morphed from: Islamic terrorism, aircraft hijacking, suicide attack, mass murder to: Islamic terrorism, aircraft hijacking, suicide attack, mass murder, stabbing, slashing, arson, torture, blunt trauma, crimes against humanity

While most of these are likely true, it seems excessive. Infoboxes should be a brief overview of the page, so brevity is best. I'd like to suggest we revert these changes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that's excessive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

True. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Does indentified people increase the count?

I know 2,996 people died but since two new victims were identified, does this increase the victim count to 2,979, and total to 2,998? They were identified back in September this year. 120.28.224.231 (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: Nevermind, Indentified means finding information about unindentified victims while found means finding new victims' bodies. so it's still 2,977 + 19 = 2,996 not 2,979 + 19 = 2,998 120.28.224.231 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Parham wiki (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Is he/she right? Parham wiki (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter is they are right, what matters is what wp:RS say. So (IP) do you have any sources supporting your claim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead section paragraphs; improvements to writing quality throughout article

I have made several edits to this article for clarity and readability that are all being reverted due to the lead being longer than four paragraphs.

Per the MOS the number of lead paragraphs is not a rule, but a general guideline. Given the length of this article and for the sake of readability, citing this guideline as a rule results in important elements being lost in unreasonable long paragraphs. This results in the article being unnecessarily difficult to read and parse.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 17#Four-paragraph lead

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 22

It's not my intention to disrupt, but rather to make the article accessible and readable to a large audience. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback or clarification on the way forward. VHarbee (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@VHarbee, let's analyze your changes. Although the Wiki guideline is to have four paragraphs maximum, you introduced 10 instead.

You made the line "The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and instigated the multi-decade global war on terror" a paragraph itself; IMO it should either be in the first or the fourth paragraph.

Then you changed The first impact was that of American Airlines Flight 11, which ringleader Muhammad Atta crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 a.m" to "American Airlines Flight 11 was the first plane to crash, hitting the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 a.m." The ringleader of the attacks, Atta, was removed from this, so was "8:46 a.m".

Then you changed "A third flight, American Airlines Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., causing a partial collapse to "American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., causing a partial collapse". I don't know why "third flight" was removed here. Also you made this line another paragraph.

You made the fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, a paragraph too. The leads are meant to be summarized not expanded, making more paragraphs isn't much helpful. Would appreciate a reply! Hezbollaist 15:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

My thinking was to separate discrete points into their own paragraphs so they can be seen even if a reader is skimming a bit. In my experience readers do tend to do that when encountering long paragraphs, particularly at the beginning of a piece of writing. As the article stands now, the death toll, key 'players' (for my lack of a better word), and other important information feels buried.

However I can also see your argument for consolidation and/or reorganization. I am all for whatever it takes to help the article become more easily readable and understood, and understand that ten paragraphs is too much.

"The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and instigated the multi-decade global war on terror"

I could see that information being in the first paragraph, given its importance to the topic.

"The first impact was that of American Airlines Flight 11, which ringleader Muhammad Atta crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 a.m" to "American Airlines Flight 11 was the first plane to crash, hitting the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 a.m."

In this case I removed mention of the ringleader due to how much it adds to and slows down the reading of this sentence; if that is crucial to the lead I could rewrite to include it. I also cleaned up redundant phrasing and filler words that for most readers will impede readability. I'm not clear on why phrases such as "The first impact was that of" are better suited for this article vs. my revision as noted in blue above. I did not remove the time of that impact, though I did for the second impact because the already already stated it was 16 minutes later, making an additional mention of the time redundant.

I removed the specific reference to the 'third flight' because two other flights had just been mentioned, and when a new flight number is given it's understood to refer to a third flight.

I also cleaned up a great deal of phrasing from the opening paragraph that does not add to the subject matter, such as what direction the flights were traveling, and this was also reverted for reasons I'm unclear on.

Thank you for talking this over with me! VHarbee (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of 10 paragraphs, I do think 4 were fine as they were in the GA review. I do disagree with the removal of time in the third plane crash as the exact time is mentioned for the first, second and fourth plane crash. The note f also looks tidier after the comma. However, I do the think the last paragraph needs some revision. Here's what I say, the first paragraph should be a general introduction, the second should be about the crashes, the third about the reasons for the attacks and the immediate U.S. response and the fourth and final one about legacy and memory of the attacks. Hezbollaist (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the other three impacts are described using the planes and not the names of the suicide pilots, the only change with which I agree is the omission of Mohamed Atta from the lead, unless the focus of the sentence is supposed to be on his being the ringleader. Hmm1994 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hmm1994, I do understand your view. However, I personally think Atta should be mentioned here as he was the ringleader, the 18 other hijackers weren't. The leads also have Osama bin Laden and not other al-Qaeda members because bin Laden was the mastermind of the attacks, despite Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually having a more prominent role in the planning of the attacks. That is why I believe Atta should be in the leads. It seems we won't reach an agreement here, and that's cool. I guess it's best to let others chime in. Thanks for the discussion. Hezbollaist (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hezbollaist Oh, no disagreement on my end. Initially I wasn't entirely sure if the sentence was trying to place emphasis on his role as the ringleader or he was randomly mentioned when the other three weren't. Hmm1994 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hmm1994 Glad we could reach a consensus. Thanks for tuning in! Hezbollaist (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Prior intelligence Main article:" September 11 intelligence before the attacks

The coverage of prior intelligence on this page seems lengthier and more detailed than that in the supposed "Main article." Mwanner | Talk 14:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Vehicle-ramming attack

Shouldn't this be described as a vehicle-ramming attack in "attack type" Unknown... (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk)

Why not? Unknown... (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Have any RS described it as such? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, no they have not. But an attack where planes are flown into buildings is the literal definition of a vehicle-ramming attack, and on that page, 9/11 is included Unknown... (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at the definitions given in Vehicle-ramming attack and Vehicle, it looks like you could be logically right, but it's an unusual and uncommon descriptor, and we also need to go by what reliable sources say, and I have seen none describing it that way. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. Unknown... (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Change the image back?

Why would they change the image like this? I have no idea why. 120.28.224.231 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Not OP, but I'm assuming they're referring to the infobox image. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The previous image depicted the towers after being attacked, so I assume the aim was to put one of the crashes on display instead. It's certainly not the photograph I would've opted for, though. Hmm1994 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we change it back for the time being? There was no discussion beforehand. Hmm1994 (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

Spelling error. Section 2.3 Damages. 5th paragraph begins with "fhe Pentagon was extensively damaged...", and should be "The" instead of "fhe". Alexrnau (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Done! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t deaths from sicknesses related to the attack be mentioned in some form in the deaths?

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/25/1201608110/fdny-deaths-from-9-11-related-illnesses-now-equal-the-number-killed-on-sept-11 https://abc7ny.com/amp/nyc-september-eleventh-9-11-related-illnesses-death-toll/13827299/ According to the FDNY, the amount of firefighters and EMTs who died from sicknesses related to 9/11 now equals the amount killed in the initial attacks themselves. I am aware that there is a separate page that talks about the deaths from sicknesses, but shouldn’t the deaths be reported in the main article as “2,996 (2,977 victims) from the initial attack. At least 343 from illnesses related to the attack.” or something to that effect.? MountainDew20 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Wikipedia will handle this one. The official victim toll of 2,977 actually does include three people who died not from the initial attack, but of illnesses related to it, which is what raised the 'official' number of victims to 2,977 from 2,974. This is an issue which troubles me because hundreds have died of illnesses brought on by toxic exposure, including the 343 firefighters and EMTs you cited, yet only three were recorded. Hmm1994 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's going to be a problem for reliable sources to handle. We need them to document deaths as officially resulting from the events of 9/11, before we can add them to the article. And I have a feeling very few will be willing to do that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2018/deaths-from-911-diseases-will-soon-outnumber-those-lost-on-that-fateful-day

I found an article from Mount Sinai Health System, a New York City hospital network, from 2018, which states that “nearly 10,000 first responders and others who were in the World Trade Center area have been diagnosed with cancer. More than 2,000 deaths have been attributed to 9/11 illnesses.” and also says that “the rate of some cancers among first responders is up to 30 percent higher than in the general population”.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/911health/enrollees/rescue-recovery-workers.page

The New York City government also says that there were 91,000 rescue workers and volunteers exposed to “environmental hazards” at Ground Zero which means that if 10,000 out of 91,000 people got cancer, that is a rate of 10.99%, nearly double the rate nationally in the US. (Source, https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#:~:text=The%20map%20shows%20that%20we,countries%20shown%20in%20light%20yellow.) MountainDew20 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, but if we want to update the official death number, we need a source that does exactly that. We could potentially have a paragraph about the increased cancer deaths by those were were at WTC that day. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

9/11 Commission

I'm really not the one to do this, but I just want to point out that there is an entire Wikipedia article about criticism of the 9/11 Commission, but not a single piece of that criticism in this article. Somebody might want change that.--Marginataen (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's called a content fork, more specifically a WP:SPINOFF which occurs when a sub-topic becomes long enough to be its own article. Adding more about it into this article would be fairly redundant and put undue weight on the criticism. At most we need a link to that article here... which we have, immediately under September 11 attacks#9/11 Commission. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2023

Add a statement mentioning that all four flight numbers (ex: UA 93) were retired after the attack. 120.28.229.213 (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Souruce? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources:

https://pentagonmemorial.org/frequently-asked-questions/#:~:text=Was%20flight%20number%2077%20retired,and%20rural%20Pennsylvania%20were%20retired.

https://lovethemaldives.com/wiki/did-american-airlines-retire-flight-number-11

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/19flight.html 120.28.229.213 (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, what does this add? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Why not add the first airplane video from Commons? (First Plane WTC) 174.3.207.112 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is pretty well illustrated right now; I don't see an appropriate place to add this video without over-cluttering the page with imagery. Liu1126 (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Why not replace the second plane video? This one is more prominent and historically significant rather than the crash seen by hundreds of video tapes. Orastor (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  22:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Foortnite-rizzler (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Originally animated to show hands being raised, as might be done along with the the exclamation Banzai! in Japan. Now more commonly only shows the hands in the air. Raising Hands was approved as part of Unicode 6.0 in 2010 under the name "Person Raising Both Hands in Celebration" and added to Emoji 1.0 in 2015.

 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. Unclear what change you are asking for or how it applies to the Sept. 11 article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)