Jump to content

Template talk:September 11 attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing conspiracy theories

[edit]

That's weird. There should have been a talk page.

In any case, removing the conspiracy theories from the template does not have any consensus; it's a separate issue from appearance in the main article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Its the same junk overall, Arthur.--MONGO 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's related to the discussion there. The conspiracy theories are linked from many articles in the Template, but should not be linked from the template itself. Doing it that way seems roughly to match the weight reliable sources give the conspiracy theories, and the weight recently endorsed by consensus on the 9/11 talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's related, but WP:ONEWAY clearly doesn't apply to navigational templates. Other formulations of WP:UNDUE might apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont think the talk on the articles talk page had anything to do with this template. We at no point discussed making the article an orphan by way of omitting it from all view. Moxy (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're linked from many articles in the template, and heavily linked throughout the project; they're in no danger of being orphaned. It's more likely that all the links have the effect of exaggerating the prominence of the conspiracy theories, making people and Google think they're more culturally significant than they are. Tom Harrison Talk 11:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. They could easily be orphaned, or converted to a WP:Walled garden. Perhaps I'll bring this up at the WikiProject, or for a full RfC. The WikiProject seems to make more sense, at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although no reason has yet been given for deletion from the template, I suspect there's at least a weak, current, consensus for removal, here. I'll remove the {{content}} tag in a week if there's no further discussion, although normally WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not considered a reason for removal. There really isn't a guideline for what should be in navigation templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

There are enough 9/11 navigational templates, that they should all be listed here, as well. I found two, but there should be more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, if you don't stop edit warring over this issue I'm going to report it. You've been around long enough to know we don't edit warMONGO 19:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Arthur...you didn't get your way at the main article so here you are insisting this one still mentions CT's...so when it isn't acceptable to keep it in the effects section or anywhere actually, you create another whole new section...no way man..it stands out even more that way.MONGO 19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you know darn well that you don't edit war, which is exactly what you are doing. There is no consensus for removal of CTs from the template, although the precise positioning can still be discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much to discuss...the CT's were deemed too poorly supported by reliable sources to be in the main article...trying to reestablish emphasis here in a navigational Template is silly.MONGO 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the templates might cause confusion, with people ending up at a template when they want an article. It's may not be a good idea in this case. Tom Harrison Talk 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that reasoning. However, there should be a listing of navigational templates somewhere in project-space. I'll bring it up, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To navigate to what? By the luck of the clock you're barely within the 3RR rule here...you've had 4 different editors edit this page and eliminate the CT's and 4 times you have added them or your version of them back...that is the definition of edit warring...knock it off.--MONGO 02:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying in the wrong section, again. And you deleted 3 of the restorations, also within 24 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that possible, Arthur, when MONGO has only edited this template twice?[1] Do I need to once again explain to you how the 3RR works? Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 (9/1)  Arthur Rubin 2011-06-22 00:01   2011-06-23 19:14
2  (2/0)  MONGO        2011-06-22 11:18   2011-06-22 19:07
2  (2/0)  Tom harrison 2011-06-23 11:38   2011-06-23 11:45
1  (1/0)  RxS          2011-06-22 02:38   2011-06-22 02:38
1  (1/0)  Hammersoft   2011-06-22 16:37   2011-06-22 16:37
1  (1/0)  Moxy         2011-06-22 00:05   2011-06-22 00:05

I've removed the conspiracy links again. Arthur, you're an administrator. You're plenty well experienced enough to not engage in edit warring conduct. Whether you are violating 3RR or not is beside the point. You are engaging in edit warring against 4 other editors who have removed the links. You stand alone. If you persist in attempting to force the links onto the article, there will be a report against you for this edit warring and it will not go well. You've been previously warned by me and warned by MONGO to cease the edit war. Enough is enough. Get consensus for inclusion or walk away from the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Arthur needs to be reverted again, make that 5 editors doing it (including me). Shirtwaist chat 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion

[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject September 11, 2001#Conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories header of its own line

[edit]

I can see that previous discussion has been against the idea as suggested by Arthur Rubin in June 2011 but I thought I would poll the editors once again regarding the insertion of a new line headed by 9/11 conspiracy theories. The articles listed in that line would be September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, and 9/11 Truth movement. I do not recommend adding tangential links such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories or Loose Change (film series). Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - templates are to help navigate topics even those articles some of us think (including me) are mostly full of BS. If there is a problem with the articles get them deleted - We should not orphan articles we dont like. Change position did not realizes there was a separate template Moxy (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 9/11 conspiracy theories have their own template, Template:911ct, and are more closely related to other conspiracy theories than to the historical events. The lead article, 9/11 conspiracy theories is already in the 911 template. It's poor organization to link sub-articles about particular cts and groups from here; it over-emphasizes their importance and misstates their relationship to what happened. Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that the 9/11 conspiracies have their own template. My proposal is to add three of the most prominent conspiracy articles into the main template. Thus, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, and 9/11 Truth movement would be added, and the 9/11 conspiracy theories entry would be given its own line. I wish to present the reader with an easier way to navigate around to articles of interest. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and it's not a good idea. It's poor organization to link sub-articles about particular cts and groups from here; it over-emphasizes their importance and misstates their relationship to what happened. Adding sub-articles here will make it harder for the reader to find articles of interest. Tom Harrison Talk 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of article views in September 2012

[edit]

This comparison makes me think that the proposed additions to the navbox are not out of line with existing entries. The article 9/11 conspiracy theories is second on the list; it gets a ton of hits. I think the number of views raises it in importance to our readers, and shows the wisdom of forming a line for the controversy subtopic. It's a shame to bury it in the listings.

At WP:NAV our guideline says the navbox is defined as a "grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." For the 295k readers who were interested in conspiracy theories last September, we do them a disservice if we do not offer them a slightly expanded menu of choices. Especially prominent in its absence on this template is the 9/11 Truth movement article; more than 32k views came through last September. The argument that there exists the Template:911ct for these folks is a weak one; that template sidelines perhaps 300k readers who could be better served by being included in the main template. WP:NAV asks us: "does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think the answer in this case is a resounding 'yes'. A notional reader who is interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories may want to compare the difference between September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories and the less-visited but more substantiated September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. He would likely want to compare the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories with the more substantiated Collapse of the World Trade Center. The template as it stands now does not help this large group of readers. I think it should! Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sidelines 300K readers"...full stop...we have no idea whether they read anything, you're talking page hits...and those conspiracy theory articles are linked offsite at dozens of CT websites...whereby the articles that are based on the known events aren't, at least not in the same way. Some of those websites already encourage their readers to go argue for more inclusion of CT's in the mainstream articles. If we were to do anything...we would have every single article that discusses the facts or the fictions, all in the same nav box, which is untenable. Should we also have the mainstream articles in the CT template?--MONGO 00:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be concerned about non-Wikipedia websites, of which I know nothing, having never surfed around them. Nor should we relegate our responsibility to those websites: if we see a navbox benefit our readers then we should implement it. However many readers it is they generate substantial views in comparison, which is the whole point. Our conspiracy readers are numerous—'nuff said. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a new navbox? You keep saying "readers", but cite page hits, not readers, which is indeterminable. If indeed the pages are getting that many hits, then why is there a need to link the CT's in with the articles that provide the factual record of what really happened?--MONGO 02:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you take that path all the way to its terminus then we should delete all the navboxes. There is no need for them. Of course that's not what we are going to do.
I would appreciate hearing a policy-based reason for not adding a couple of additional controversy topics. I offered WP:NAV in support. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't we going to link to the fact based articles in the CT navbox?--MONGO 03:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can put some of the main substantiated article links in there, and we can some of the main conspiracy theory links in here. Serve all readers with useful options. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then they might as well be combined into one navbox, which isn't going to happen since one links the conspiracy theories and this one doesn't-'nuff said.--MONGO 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a continuum of possibilities, it does not have to be all the way one way, or all the way the other. The continuum includes the possibility of cross-pollinating the two templates with a few article links of general interest to both groups of template users. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cts are way more prominent online than in real life. That's one of the reasons we have two dozen articles on 911 conspiracy theories - so many that they have their own template. The interest in conspiracy theories of twenty-something white guys on the internet is a systemic bias we should avoid, not exacerbate. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris

[edit]

Daniel Case, despite your revert I do still feel that Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris does not belong in this template. Looking at the three other crimes in the template (Killing of Henryk Siwiak, Disappearance of Sneha Anne Philip, Murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi), each of them has a much stronger connection to the terrorist attacks than Harris's case does. Siwiak was killed in the same city and possibly as a result of the attacks (Lucyna Siwiak believes the killer may have thought her brother was a terrorist.). Philip was in the immediate vicinity of the World Trade Center and possibly died in the attacks. Sodhi was murdered in direct retribution. By contrast, Harris disappeared hundreds of miles away. Only two sentences in the entire article relate to the attacks at all. I think that people use this template to find information related to the terrorist attacks (I know I certainly did) and I do not think that the link to Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris is helpful in that regard. Interested to hear your thoughts. Rublov (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that, like the Siwiak case, the investigation was hampered, perhaps to the case's lasting detriment, by the attacks. Yes, 9/11 was over two hundred miles away ... but the night Harris was last seen, the New York State Police, the only law enforcement agency in Tioga County with the resources to handle a large-scale missing-persons investigation, had already bused hundreds of troopers, forensics specialists and other resources like helicopters that would have been useful on the Southern Tier down to Lower Manhattan. They basically left a skeleton crew behind and had to be hoping nothing really bad happened for the next couple of weeks at least.
So when her disappearance was reported the next morning, a skilled statewide agency that should have been able to deal with it professionally from the get-go had about as many resources at its disposal as the Owego or Waverly police did ... just to cover the entire county. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are on the same page about the facts of the case, but the question is whether this link is more likely than not to be useful to users of this infobox. We have to be careful not to set the bar for inclusion too low — many things were affected by the 9/11 attacks in some way but we can't include them all. Rublov (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication template

[edit]

Is {{September 11th attacks}} duplicating this one? Aside it being a sidebar, can the two be merged (some formatting can be added to opt-in it as a sidebar), although the sidebar is new, is there consensus to not have it in the form of a sidebar? DankJae 20:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DankJae I noticed that too. What's up with seeming duplicate templates?--FeralOink (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:September_11_attacks&oldid=1252375252"