Jump to content

Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64

Requested move 26 January 2024

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 (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → 9/11 – As the article states, the attacks are commonly known as “9/11”, most people refer to it as “9/11”, other articles about it on Wikipedia itself have “9/11” in the title such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 truth movement, and the United States Government’s commission into the attacks and that commission’s report on the attacks refer to it as “9/11”. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Are they really commonly known as “9/11”, everywhere, by everyone? I don't refer to it as “9/11”, but you see, I'm not American. I doubt if anyone else I know refers to it as “9/11”. There is a major problem with that name for this GLOBAL encyclopaedia. To me, and to almost everyone outside the USA, 9/11 means the 9th of November. I believe we need to keep the more explicit, globally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11". Not only is "9/11" a common colloquial term, but it has also been officially adopted in various contexts. As MountainDew20 pointed out, both the United States Government's commission and its report on the attacks use the term "9/11." This lends official credibility to the usage of the term. Since other articles related to the September 11th attacks already use "9/11" in their titles, it makes sense to align the main article's title with this established convention. Also, being as this was a terrorist attack based in America, it should titled what it is referred to as in America. Yes, this is a global encyclopedia, but it is formatted mostly in American format. For instance, look up "color". The article is in the American format, instead of "colour". Same for "potato chip". Also, while the term "9/11" may have originated in the United States, it has become globally recognized and widely used to refer to the September 11th attacks. This term has transcended national boundaries and is commonly understood by people around the world. Using "9/11" in the title can actually enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. Many individuals, especially those who are not native English speakers, might naturally search for "9/11" when looking for information about the attacks, given its widespread usage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and widely recognized information. If "9/11" is the commonly used and understood term, it serves the encyclopedia's mission to use that term as the title for the article. Pmealer126 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11".
Your personal experience is not a WP:RS for making changes to Wikipedia articles. Again, the problem is that moving this article to "9/11" introduces too much ambiguity and makes it more difficult for users to find this article, we would have to disambiguate the article. Such a move does not enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
As HiLo points out, moving it to 9/11 would just mean confusing it with the actual date scheme. This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME falls afoul of making things more confusing and harder to find the correct article. So I have to say Oppose to this proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per HandThatFeeds. I'm also not convinced it is the common name outside of being a colloquialism. — Czello (music) 13:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sidebar article expansion

Thoughts on expanding this sidebar to related articles? trainrobber >be me 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2024

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: It has snowed heavily today. Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – They're terrorist attacks, so why not extend the name so everyone knows that it's terrorism? WP:CONCISE GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Incredulous oppose. Because of the superfluity of "terrorist", that's why not. You prop up your plea for lengthening the title by citing WP:CONCISE, which says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". Uh-huh. I suggest that "September 11 attacks" (i) is brief, and (ii) provides sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose and WP:SNOW close. There's no ambiguity with the original wording (at least not one that would be solved by the addition of the word "terrorist", as other attacks on other September 11s have also involved terrorists), and if sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area is the goal (per the comment above) I'd say that criteria is already met – this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not sure how WP:CONCISE can be cited to lengthen a title. — Czello (music) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose This brings completely unnecessary clarity. In addition, the fact they were terrorist attacks is already mentioned in the first sentence, so any confusion as to whether it is a government attack or a terrorist attack is rapidly shut down during almost any readers first read through. On top of that, if the new title goes in the opening sentence, it simply clutters up the sentence by repeated information. In general it is an unnecessary change, and this argument should be shut down. I would agree with applying WP:SNOW in this case. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Snow Oppose, the September 11 attacks are a widely known common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose- Common name and what is is mostly called LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“United States” in lead

Should the “United States” in the lead be a link to the U.S.’s article, being the first mention of the country in the page? Jackvoeller (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Why, is it likly people will need to know what we mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a global encyclopedia, we can't assume that everyone knows what the United States is. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Surely you are not serious? (Note: I live in the opposite side of the world to the US).14.2.196.234 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course I'm serious. Wikipedia can't make any assumption about its readers other than that they are literate in English. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Anyone literate in English knows what the United States is. We do not assume our readers are completely ignorant of the world, WP:SKYBLUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
That has to do with citations, not linking. --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
It's the same concept. We don't need to link to the United States, in an article about an attack against the United States, in the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"At morning"

In the intro section, the sentence that begins "At morning," doesn't quite read clearly to American English readers. Just a suggestion that it be changed to "That morning" or "In the morning" or a similarly appropriate substitute. 2601:CD:4000:610:F435:89A0:E7C4:EA0B (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Goszei (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

change in a "passenger revolt" to "what was most likely a passenger revolt" As it cannot be 100% confirmed if it was a passenger revolt or a malfunction of the plane. Pinkgarfunkel (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a passenger revolt, so that's what we go by. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

New WTC *complex*

Second to last sentence in last paragraph of introduction implies that only Tower #1 was rebuilt and does not mention Towers 3, 4 and the incomplete Tower 2. Link to the page for the whole complex and mention there are multiple towers on the site now - a lot of people don't seem to realize that... Ee100duna (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Building 3, 4, and the Performing Arts Center are mentioned in section 6.1; additionally, there is a link to the new complex at the heading section of that section. I don't feel like it's really necessary to mention these buildings in the opening paragraph. However, I do feel like that perhaps something along the line of "reconstruction of the World Trade Center complex commenced..." or something to that effect. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos changed without consensus

I don't know who changed the photos in the Infobox, but the new photos look horrendous. I can't find any consensus in archive for this massive change, may we please revert back to original photos? Cena332 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s okay to change photos over time, but they should certainly be discussed here first, especially for this article. PascalHD (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

PascalHD These new photos were not discussed and just changed without any discussion, previously editors discussed photos changes to the Infobox on this article talk page first. Is it ok to add the old ones back until editors can have a agreement if we want to change. --Cena332 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is normal procedure to revert a change that was not discussed when necessary.PascalHD (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
just done. Cena332 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2024

NOT MOVED
WP:SNOW. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

September 11 attacks → 9/11 – More people call it 9/11. I rarely hear people say, "September 11 attacks". Merv Mat (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Merv Mat (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We've been here before - please see Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_64 for the most recent discussion. Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I see nothing new from then last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Seriously, no. This perennial request is going nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Already previously discussed. Absolutely no need to discuss again. David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islamist

User:Dalremnei indeffed for NPA and NOTHERE by admin. Nothing left to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

This has been discussed many times before, with a consensus of sources calling the perpetrators "Islamist." A couple of editors have recently been removing it, with no obvious explanation. I have restored it twice. I invite explanations of why this ought to be removed, using references to reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I support the previous consensus, which has held for years. We've been through various possibilities, but "Islamist" captures the motivation and ideology of the attackers well, and is supported robustly by reliable sources. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It sure is easy to talk about "reliable sources" and dismiss this edit as "unconstructive" when you completely ignore the reasoning given in the initial edit that removed "Islamist" and in subsequent undos! So that it cannot be ignored on the talk page, here's a little reminder!
  • First edit: No one calls the war crimes committed by Bush or Obama "Democratic terrorism" or such, so why should it be done on here
  • Second edit: Reliable sources are the sources that are reliable only because you want to call them reliable. Use of the word "Islamist" here is of malicious intent, and serves to justify the horrific actions and political agenda of George Bush.
So this is NOT about sources. Address the actual complaint please. Dalremnei --Dalremnei (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This discussion has nothing to do with George Bush or Obama, and you are employing a personal analysis that ignores sources, which are what Wikipedia relies upon. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This kind of opinion-based content removal is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And why do your comments exactly echo the edit summaries used by Par âpre aux astres (talk · contribs)? Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Please fully read comments before replying to them. The reason I copied those edit summaries into my reply is clear if you actually read it. --Dalremnei (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
We already have addressed those complaints. The first complaint is irrelevant. Islamic terrorism is a specific thing, notable, and well cited. The second complaint is a combination of "I don't like it" and assuming bad faith.
I don't see how the first complaint is irrelevant. I'd also be fine with "Islamist terrorism" being the description used if that standard was applied elsewhere as Par âpre aux astres (talk · contribs) has suggested. That would be maintaining a neutral point of view. It's not assuming bad faith when the terminology used is in bad faith, as well. --Dalremnei (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, you need to dial back the rhetoric and take the time to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You sound like you're here to pick a fight, rather than collaborate in improving articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, RS calls it Islamic, so do we, what users' own opinions are does not matter, no matter how logical (read WP:NOTDUMB). Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Have you considered that in an Islamophobic, US-centric society, terminology used in reliable sources will reflect those biases? Wikipedia can and should do better. Dalremnei (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This is always how bigotry gets justified online. It's dismissed as mere "opinion" or "feelings". 🙄 --Dalremnei (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
NO its not, and as said you need to reign it in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Caps are considered shouting. Please calm down. Dalremnei (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Do not accuse other editors of justifying bigotry. That's a personal attack and can result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
How else am I meant to respond then? That isn't always going to be a personal attack. In most cases, like this one, it's just true. Bigots love to hide behind the justification of just being "logical" and "looking at the facts" and I should be able to call that out. Dalremnei (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
By following policy, such as wp:or. If you want to make an edit bring forth RS that backs up your claim, do not make comparisons with other pages = using a wqp:falsebalnc argument. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
That's enough. Unless you have explicit evidence of bigotry, stop making that accusation. If you continue down this path, we'll have to ask admins to block you for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, the "show me the evidence" game, where subtle bigotry is never actually proof of bigotry and the goal posts are always shifted to excuse it. Classic. Dalremnei (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Use of the word "Islamist" here is of malicious intent, and serves to justify the horrific actions and political agenda of George Bush. This is a bizarre claim and completely fails WP:AGF. It is not malicious, it's a factual description of the organisation who perpetrated the attack. — Czello (music) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know, I think it's a pretty reasonable statement which is why I started to revert the edits that reverted "Islamist" back into the description. But I think you'd need to ask the user who made that edit to explain further, since I don't want to speak on their behalf. Dalremnei (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
With your second argument, calling the earth spherical serves America's propaganda purposes (Apollo program, etc.). Your first argument is nonsense because no one says such a thing. If you continue to prejudice and attack others, you will be blocked. See WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:FOC, WP:AGF and WP:UNDUE Parham wiki (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Please read my comment fully before replying to it. Gosh, reading comprehension is shockingly bad for a talk section supposedly full of experienced editors... Dalremnei (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Why did you undo my compromise edit? I was trying to make the wording suit both sides. Dalremnei (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Its what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that Dalremnei reads carefully all the above comments by experienced editors: stops edit-warring and stops the use of caps - which is considered shouting. The use of the word "Islamist" correctly states the prime motivation of the terriorists and is used by all the worlds mainstream media. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This is always how it goes on wikipedia. You try to make a positive change and then a bunch of editors with millions of edits going back decades jump in to defend the status quo. Dalremnei (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It is positive or a violation of wp:npov? Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The page as it exists right now is a violation of NPOV and I was trying to help fix that. Dalremnei (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
NPOV does not require a false balance, it requires that articles reflect a consensus of the major points of view described in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence in those sources. To pretend that the agenda of of bin Laden was not Islamist in nature or to obscure it ignores reality. I will also point out that the lead paragraph(s) is a summary of the reliably-sourced content in the article body, so removing something like that from the lead accomplishes nothing except to confuse the summary. Acroterion (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay so when are articles about US war crimes going to refer to it as Democratic or Republican terrorism then? Dalremnei (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This is whataboutism. But, in answer to your question – we say what sources say, and they don't call US military action "Democratic or Republican terrorism". The reason that "Islamism" is appropriate is because it is the guiding ideology that led to the attacks described in this article. — Czello (music) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Is that not a clear example of the bias of "reliable sources" causing bias on wikipedia through wikipedia's policies? Perhaps the more accurate analogy would be calling US war crimes Christian terrorism. That makes just as much sense but would be considered offensive. Dalremnei (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
MAybe, but this is not the pace for that discussion, this is about this article, not any others or Wikipedia in general. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Unless you can document how Christian beliefs were directly responsible for those "war crimes", you cannot. Reliable sources have clearly demonstrated how Bin Laden & Al Qaeda were driven by Islamist extremist beliefs.
But this is getting into WP:FORUM territory, it's no longer about this article. It's about you personally taking offense to how reliable sources have documented the motives behind the attacks, which is a you problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
How are muslim beliefs supposedly responsible for 9/11? That's a completely amaterialistic look at motives. Geopolitics and war are far better explanations than religious belief. Dalremnei (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
We do not say Muslin. belives were, we say Islamists ones were, not all Muslims are Islamists. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
You should probably read the article then, along with Islamism, because it's laid out there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I knew this would happen as soon as someone tried to drag this issue into the talk page. You win, established editors. You get to comfortably ignore opposing views because the mainstream media affirms all of yours. I tried to make a compromise edit that addressed this edit but oh, that's not good enough... wiki editors demand absolute ideological compliance. Dalremnei (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No, we demand you adhere to our rules. If that's unpalatable, you may want to look elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
But it seems impossible to get this edit done in a way that satisfies "the rules". Every time I reverted the page it was reverted back, and then I was accused of edit-warring. If you aren't part of the elite editor clique your views mean nothing. Dalremnei (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, so have you procduced an RS supporting the claim that it is only called this by the media, and was not, in fact, an Islamist attack? Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that the problem with saying "Islamist" is that it promotes an agenda and the same standard is not applied to actions that could reasonably be called terrorism by enemies of the USA such as air strikes and war crimes in the Middle East. Either religion factors into mass murder events or it doesn't. You shouldn't get to pick and choose, even if the mainstream media does. Dalremnei (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No I do understand, that the USA is not a religion, and that we do not accuse any nation of carrying out this attack (which its perpetrators made clear was in the name of religion). And you are unwilling to listen I am not going to reply anymore. We call Christian terrorism Christian terrorism, why shous we not call Islamist terrorism Islamist? Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
What you don't understand is that Islamism is an ideology. It's based on a particular interpretation of the Muslim faith, but we are not smearing Muslims when we point out that actual Islamists engineered the attacks in order to further their ideology.
You're attempting to pull an all-or-nothing argument, that we can never acknowledge the ideology of a terrorist group if it's based on religion unless we somehow include religion into the motivation of every terrorist group. That's nonsensical and not going to fly.
We understand your point, but you seem doggedly determined not to understand ours. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Your point just seems to be "well the mainstream media agrees with our bias so it's actually neutral to perpetuate it". I'm sure you can understand why I strongly disagree with that. Dalremnei (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Then you need to try and change Wikipedia's fundamental rules for sourcing, which... well, good luck.
Also, quit fucking calling us biased. Your assumptions of bad faith are tiresome, and I'll be seeking sanctions if you continue it. WP:DROPTHESTICK and just move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm accused of edit warring. By your reasoning that's just a bad-faith personal attack and doesn't actually mean I was edit warring, right? If every criticism is just "assuming bad faith" (a reasonable assumption sometimes) or "personal attacks" and can be dismissed then I don't really feel like the accusation of edit warring is fair, or really means anything. Dalremnei (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
sigh No, and such pedantry is not going to work. You have been edit-warring, which can be seen by your edits to the article. That's not a personal attack, that's a fact easily reviewed by anyone. Attempting to play word games is disingenuous, and I'm done with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK what was wrong with the last edit, Let's engage in a bit of whataboutsim. Do we say "Islam (what RS calls a religion)"? Do we say "WW2 (what RS call a war)? Do we say "Dog (which RS call an animal)"? No, where RS is pretty much unanimous we do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

False equivalance. Dalremnei (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And that is just what you are being told, that is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but what exactly is the issue with my edit? It addresses the controversy in this edit war without actually removing any information. I don't like it, but evidently everyone else also doesn't like it, which seems like a good compromise to me. Dalremnei (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The is going nowhere, a clear case of wp:idnht and it needs closing. Slatersteven (talk)

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 photos

Infobox photos were changed without consensus, reverting @Cena332's edits. The pictures that are currently on the article's infobox now are horrible, they only display the violence of September 11th. I think we need to have a wider variety of photos that show not only what happened on this day, but also the aftermath. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - I suggest restoring the previous selection, which puts the event in better perspective. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts on this suggestion? Reverting to a photo set that has been used or a new photo set that better depicts September 11th and its aftermath. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The editor GoatLord234 also remove this warning when he reverted. --Do NOT change a photo without discussion first on the talk page.-- Thanks for notifying me. Cena332 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
There are no clear images of the attacks in either set. I wonder if we could use impact footage and isolate a frame of the second plane before the strike? Hmm1994 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Massoud warning

Let's discuss the addition of a couple sentences about Massoud’s warning about an impending attack on the US. The CNN source writes that "[the Defense Intelligence Agency] continues by referring to a speech Massoud gave to the European Parliament in April 2001 in which the cable says he 'warned the US government' about bin Laden," indicating that the U.S. intelligence community has interpreted his speech as an early warning. Dan Wang (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, not about this specific attack, Also this was not the only attack launched by him against the US (or the West). Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It was interpreted as a warning about a specific attack (the cable noting, “Massoud’s intelligence staff is aware that the attack against the US will be on a scale larger than the 1998 embassy bombings, which killed over two hundred people and injured thousands”), not just Osama bin Laden in general. Naturally they didn’t know all the details, but it’s consistent with the level of (un)certainty that other intel covered in this section exhibits. For instance:

By late June, senior counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke and CIA director George Tenetwere "convinced that a major series of attacks was about to come", although the CIA believed the attacks would likely occur in Saudi Arabia or Israel.

Dan Wang (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This does not necessarily relate to the 9/11 attacks, I do not think this needs to be added. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Would appreciate the input of any and all others as well! Dan Wang (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we change the infobox photos?

There was recently a conflict a few weeks ago over the montage in the the infobox. I would like to get everybody’s opinion on the infobox images and if we should change them. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no need to change them Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This issue was resolved the other day. The infobox is back to how it should be. No further changes necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC);
The info box is fine as it is. I see no need for any further changes. David J Johnson (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no clear images of an attack in progress.

The closest we have is a blurry still of American Flight 77 before its collision. There is one image that the caption says is United Flight 175, but it's not. It's an image of its explosion.

Is there any possibility that we could use impact footage and isolate a frame from when Flight 175 was within seconds of striking the tower? Hmm1994 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
So that there's a clear image of the article's subject. Hmm1994 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the point Slatersteven is trying to make is, "How does that better illustrate the article's subject, compared to what we have now?" There doesn't seem to be any real reason to do this. The article's subject is the attacks as a whole, not any single airliner's impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I also want to add we know what happened on September 11th. We know both the World Trade Center twin towers were struck. The instant after the impact of United 175 on the South Tower — explosive ball of flame — is sufficient enough. Additionally, as mentioned above, events of September 11th includes more than just the impacts on the World Trade Center. It involves events at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. No change necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction now in place

Due to frequent but sporadic edit warring, I've placed this article under an indefinite "consensus required" restriction, the specific of which are visible in the header here, the editnotice at the article itself, and pasted below for visibility. I ask that regular editors here be watchful for violations and conscientious about making new editors formally aware of this contentious topic. Best practice is to notify people if they've violated the restriction and request a self-revert, rather than immediately seeking a sanction. The restriction:

Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The infobox images hs been changed without consensus. I just reverted it, but I encourage discussion here. Thanks. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I just reverted changes that were made without consensus. Please discuss here. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

the use of “islamist” in the introduction and in the “attack type” in the overview is subjective, offensive and unnecessary. the information and impact of the attack will remain the same without that label. pointing towards one specific group will not diminish what happened on 9/11 - their islamic religion had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred.


“The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[f] were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. That morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners scheduled to travel from the East Coast to California. The hijackers crashed the first two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, two of the world's five tallest buildings at the time, and aimed the next two flights toward targets in or near Washington, D.C., in an attack on the nation's capital. The third team succeeded in striking the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania during a passenger revolt. The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people, making them the deadliest terrorist attack in history. In response to the attacks, the United States waged the multi-decade, global War on Terror to eliminate hostile groups deemed as terrorist organizations, as well as the foreign governments purported to support them. Conflicts were fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and several other countries, under this justification”.

the impact is exactly the same, and u will not be marginalising people while trying to send the impact across to the next person. Saturnraindrops (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you Dalremnei under a new account? — Czello (music) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
You do know that "Islamist" and "Islamic" are different, right? Have a look at Islamism if you are not familiar with it. Muslims are not necessarily Islamist. While there are some moderate elements within this broadly political-religious movement, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (and others) represent its more extreme manifestation. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2024

WP:SNOW closing, this is a perennial request that has no support. See the Archives. Also, you used the wrong template. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

9/11 is more commonly used than September 11 attacks. 2600:1700:6180:6290:1C26:EFE8:3894:862E (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed again and again, with no consensus to move. See the top of this page and the archives. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I oppose. I read 9/11 as 9⁄11. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "9/11" is a colloquial shortening; the formal name is "September 11 attacks", and being an encyclopedia, the formal is more appropriate. As long as the redirect goes here we're good. Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close. This has been discussed previously and no new arguments are being presented here. — Czello (music) 11:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
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.

Proposal to remove use of word Islamist in September 11 attacks wiki

Closing this thread; no new reliably-sourced arguments have been presented, nor is there anything close to consensus support for removing "Islamist". Antandrus (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm proposing removing the word Islamist on ground it is a Loaded language, MOS:RACIST,WP:NPOV. It is currently used in lead paragraph, short description (Islamist terror attacks in the United States).

The word “Islamist” is often considered a loaded word. It carries connotations and implications that vary widely depending on context, audience, and can evoke strong emotions or judgments. Originally, “Islamist” referred to individuals or groups advocating for the implementation of Islamic law and governance based on Islamic principles. However, since September 11 attacks, especially in Western media and political discourse, the term has become associated with extremism and terrorism. This shift has led to a broad and often negative interpretation of the word, conflating peaceful political movements with violent extremism.

The use of “Islamist” can thus be seen as pejorative and can perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims, suggesting that any form of political Islam is inherently radical or violent. This broad-brush approach fails to recognize the diversity within political Islam and the distinction between moderate, political, and extremist elements.

Moreover, the term can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements or parties within Muslim-majority countries that seek to engage in the democratic process while adhering to Islamic values. As a result, the use of “Islamist” requires careful consideration of context and intent to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and contributing to Islamophobia.

The term lacks a precise definition and can be used to describe a broad spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. This ambiguity can lead to overgeneralization and misrepresentation of diverse groups and individuals. The term’s ambiguity further contributes to its loaded nature. For some, Islamist simply denotes a political ideology, comparable to terms like “capitalist” or “socialist.” For others, it implies a threat to secular governance and Western values, which can stoke fear and prejudice. This duality can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations, impacting public opinion and policy.

Using Islamist here can inadvertently contribute to Islamophobia, fostering a monolithic and negative view of Islam and its followers. However, due to its frequent misuse and the heavy baggage it carries, “Islamist” is indeed a loaded word, it must be employed with care requiring careful and context-specific application to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or unjustly maligning individuals and groups. Gsgdd (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you're worried that the perpetrators of 9/11 are tarred with a word "associated with extremism and terrorism", a word that has "often negative interpretation", is "pejorative" and which "can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements". Er...Oppose, obviously. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
If that's what you understood - maybe read it again without prejudice. Ty Gsgdd (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you should have given greater thought to your proposal before publication. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe the concern is tarring Islamists in general unjustly. An Islamist is merely someone who abides by one of any manner of political Islam. Turkey's government is Islamist. That term alone does not imply political extremism, militancy, or any of the other traits. Since the "war on terror", it is however true that false opprobrium has been foisted on the term "Islamist", with naive and ignorant commentators using it interchangeably with terms like "jihadist". Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
correct. The attacks on September 11, were carried out by the extremist group al-Qaeda, which is driven by a specific radical interpretation of Islam. The term "Islamism" broadly refers to political movements that seek to implement Islamic law and principles in governance. While not all forms of Islamism endorse violence, the ideology behind al-Qaeda is a militant form of Islamism that promotes jihadist terrorism. Currently i think the use of Islamist in short desc and lead violates wiki NPOV.
The motivation behind the 9/11 attacks was complex and rooted in a variety of factors, including geopolitical grievances, a reaction against U.S. foreign policy, and an extremist worldview that justified the use of violence to achieve its aims. It is important to distinguish between Islam as a religion and the specific radical ideologies that drove the 9/11 attackers. It should not be shortened just to Islamist without context Gsgdd (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing unjust about it. Islamists are little different than Dominionists or Zionists when it comes down to it, and Wikipedia doesn't sugarcoat those ideologies. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Rather than call out the people who commit acts of violence, you propose not identifying these people in hopes that the next terrorist is not identified. I think the kkk and white men werena target for a while. I hear no mention of re-branding the kkk 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Briefly, why is this an RFC? Has it been discussed before? If not, perhaps remove the RFC template and just have a normal discussion. On the merits, yes, Al-Qaeda is more specifically and aptly a "jihadist" organization, which is much more specific than mere "Islamist", which just means anyone inclined to political Islam. Other applicable terms could be militant Islamist or Islamic extremist, but "jihadist" more or less covers all of those bases, so job done! Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Job not done. Multiple RS refer to the attackers as Islamist. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Great, but we don't want just what any old multiple RS say. We want what the best in-depth analysis of Al-Qaeda now state. But in any case, why wouldn't you want to specify that it was a specifically militant Islamist or jihadist attack? What is wrong with greater specificity? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a question of WP:DUE. I think "jihadist" is less used than "Islamist" and I doubt that "islamist" generally requires further specificity in the context of 9/11. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Just because its widely used in RS doesn't mean its okay. After 9/11 emotions were high - and western media used the word negatively and continues to do since. Thats why i think it is loaded word, and MOS:RACIST Im also do not support using militant Islamist. It still do not address my concerns. It just adding word militant before Islamist. Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. "because it's widely used in RS" is exactly why it's ok in Wikipedia. Your personal objections to the word are irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but "militant Islamist" clarifies that violent "militant Islamism" is beyond the general concept of Islamism, just as a "political extremist" is something beyond a normal political actor. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
How about this? Instead of "Islamist suicide terrorist attack", where "suicide terrorist attack" is a piped link to just "suicide attack", we un-pipe that link, and clarify that it's an Islamist terrorist suicide attack? Same words. Better order. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm also advocating for ending the association of religion with terrorism. When a Christian commits an act of terrorism, we do not label it as “Christian terrorism,” nor do we call it a “Hindu terrorism” when a Hindu does the same. Millions of people read Wikipedia, and we should stop promoting Islamophobia and religious hatred. Islamism isnt the cause of 9/11. that's what the article is saying. Gsgdd (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This comes down to sources. In any case, the argument for what you suggest would need to be made at Islamic terrorism, not here, if at all. Incidentally, Hindu terrorism does exist as a page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist or to Islam in lead paragraph and short description without context and explanation. This isnt about the concept of Islamic terrorism which can exist independently Gsgdd (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That's absurd. That's exactly what the RS do associate it with. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well? Gsgdd (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Did you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It's fundamental to being a Wikipedia editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
yes - did you read Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Gsgdd (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think I first read it in about 2010. Why? It's quite ironic for you to raise it which makes me think you haven't understood it, or understood any of the fundamentals of our approach to editing. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
i think, there is more to it than you think. for eg. it say "In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible"
It says "This word has multiple meanings, and the relevant one is "The point at which an action is triggered, especially a lower limit." This means the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability" it means to me, that is not the right standard, just the minimum
It also talk about Truth being subjective. "Here we prioritize facts over subjective truths." Gsgdd (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Your grabbing at tiny out of context straws to ignore what that essay is shouting out you. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gsgdd: You could have left my middle ground edit in place while continuing to discuss. You're really not building a consensus coalition here. But as you will: now "Islamist" is back in place. Great result all round. Good job. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
@Iskandar323 i appreciate your discussions. But your edit doesn't address my concern. It should stay in place - until i can get more eyes from neutral editors. Changing it right now, may prevent editors from understanding my points. Gsgdd (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Not really, because you could still keep objecting to the word Islamist even after me edit, which incidentally was also about resolving a piping issue, which you have now re-crapped up again. You are unlikely to gain consensus to remove any mention of anything related to Islamic ideology when the perpetrators here were motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources are also not with you. You have to separate what you want from what is realistic based on sources and policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I want to try. It may be okay to explain it with context. What's not okay is blindly calling Sept 11 attack as Islamist. Short in description reads Islamist terror attacks in the United States. Are you saying this is inline with wiki policies ? Gsgdd (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist I mean... yes. Because it clearly is associated. — Czello (music) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about your own misconceptions principally. See the articles on Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Already replied it above Gsgdd (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
a Hindu committing a terrorist attack? You are going to bring in Hindu's . (Personal attack removed) When was the last time a Christian group attacked a county? Violently? I get handing out bibles can be seen as attack. Islam does not like respect other religions. There in lies the problem. 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
what about this
The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11, were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by extremist Islamist group al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. Gsgdd (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with that - although the target article's title ("Islamic terrorism") is somewhat dubious in my view. But "Islamist terrorist suicide attack" in this article works for me. 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry - i dint realize we needed to discuss first before opening rfc. removed RFC for now Gsgdd (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This really should be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I did. Gsgdd reverted me, so let's do this.
This is a non-starter of a proposal, and Gsgdd is simply trying to right great wrongs, which is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt social change, and should not be. The arguments that RS are "wrong" and therefore should be ignored is not going to be of any use on Wikipedia.
Further, casually throwing around the term racism is a dangerous game, and one I believe will blow up in your face. Gsgdd, I strongly suggest you step back and reconsider your approach. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I have already communicated, i removed the RFC tag shortly after posting it. It need not be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. It no longer applies Gsgdd (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
While I agree with the need for caution around these labels, specifically given the way they are misapplied, I think it is appropriate to describe AQ as Islamist. This doesn't change the fact there are peaceful Islamist movements, but your proposal is like saying we shouldn't call Hitler "right-wing" because there are plenty of non-fascist right-wingers. Yr Enw (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Words has many meaning. I think Islamist is the wrong word. We label al qaeda as jihadist terrorist group or something specific, rather than labeling 9/11 as a islamist attack. It just wrong. that's the truth i believe. Gsgdd (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Jihadist is a good alternative, but it doesn’t make Islamist wrong. I guess the best approach is always reflecting what sources use the most (preferably academic, bc journalistic sources can indeed be very irresponsible and sloppy in how they use these terms) Yr Enw (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
RS say it was, the US government says it was, so we say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The U.S. government refers to the attacks as ‘Islamist suicide terrorist attacks,’ so RS follows suit. However, my point is that the term Islamist is being used out of context and potentially violates WP:NPOV. It wasn’t Islamist that caused 9/11, but rather the extremist group al-Qaeda, which practices jihadist terrorism. Therefore, it would be clearer and more accurate to specify this in the lead, rather than using a term with multiple meanings Gsgdd (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
No there is no misunderstanding, their goal was not "al-Qaeda" not their motivation or agenda, it was Islamist. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
How the hell is it used out of context? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Did you use an AI to write this? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Now that you mention it ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close this discussion. This has been discussed before and I'm very suspicious that OP is a sock of Dalremnei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) given that they got blocked over the same debate (and potentially socked again in another discussion on the same topic). — Czello (music) 15:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE CHANGE and I agree with @Czello I believe this is a banned user using a sock puppet account to further push their agenda against using Islamist when referring to who carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks. I also want to point out that Islamist is the extremist view of Islam that's not followed by mainstream Muslims. There should be a clear indication of this on Wikipedia to silence this discussion once and for all. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
That part is not true. Islamism is just an "ism" for political Islam, and you get non-militant, non-extremist Islamists. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

Protection status

As we approach September and the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, I would like to begin the discussion of protecting this page through the month of September 2024. What I've noticed in recent weeks is a lot of edits that propagate conspiracy theories. Please discuss below this message. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't typically enact protection ahead of time. Some years barely anything happens, others we need protection. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I've seen a small uptick, but nothing concerning, and we deal with it if we need to. The past few years haven't amounted to much. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hijackers vs terrorists

@epicgenius you reverted my edit which I made as per MOS:TERRORISM. The reason you cited for the revert is that “it is very well documented that al-Qaeda is a terrorist group”. I agree with that, however, according to the MOS even in cases where such a label is widely used by reliable sources it should be used with in-text attribution. aps (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede isn't the place for in-text attribution of that kind, where it would be awkward, wordy and unnecessarily hedged. The lede is a summary, and this isn't a remotely ambiguous event of the kind that the MoS contemplates. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
THis is an issue of a technical violation, but I am unsure its all that contentious. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that 9/11 (and many other events) was terrorism. And I doubt that anyone would in good faith argue that it wasn’t. However, we don’t use this metric to describe other events (see for example [1]) and using it here makes Wikipedia appear biased since, effectively, editors of individual pages determine what is and isn’t deserving of compliance with MOS:TERRORISM. aps (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
There does seem to be a double standard here Omagh bombing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
My edit [2] changed the wording to avoid the awkwardness of in-text attribution.
Regarding the MoS, is there precedent that some events are considered not remotely ambiguous of the kind that the MoS contemplates and as such appropriate to be described with (relatively) loaded terms? aps (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Simply put, the attribution is in the article itself, see WP:LEDE. The only reason you sometimes see cites in the lede is because people were fighting over the wording constantly, so editors grudgingly included cites there just to make them stop it. The lede itself is supposed to just summarize the cited information contained in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

105.245.44.11 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

i will add more information

What information? Slatersteven (talk)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article propagates an official lie

At least 6 hijackers were alive afterward. The buildings collapsed due to explosives. Sorgfelt (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Please see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pre-Removal Discussion: Dancing Israelis

Hi, I am the one who added the paragraph on the "dancing Israelis." I think it is highly relevant and it is indeed a real incident. I also included the two publicly-available screenshots of the FBI report on their arrest:


FBI report of flight itinerary of arrested Israelis on 9/11 suspected of being Mosaad agents.
FBI report released via FOI request that the Israelis detained on Sept 11th, 2001 were operating a fake moving company and a hijacker was believed to have used their services.

If anybody disagrees with this paragraph I added or its images, I'd like to make this space available for you ahead of time to present your opinions for discussion as I predict disagreement on the topic. ABC News still has a few articles up on the topic, e.g. [3] You can read the FBI report here: [4] Thanks! DivineReality (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_64&oldid=1250941696"