Revision as of 06:35, 18 September 2024 editDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,955 edits →top: updated Top 25 Report← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:51, 6 January 2025 edit undoAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,856 editsm Reverted edit by 2601:410:8180:FE10:20A1:A5A2:5D0B:AE13 (talk) to last version by UnidentifiabilityTag: Rollback |
(71 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
Line 163: |
Line 163: |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}} |
Line 173: |
Line 173: |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} |
Line 259: |
Line 258: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
== "Flew" vs "which crashed" == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Беарофчечьня}}, I have reverted your change. makes the sentence more clumsy. It doesn't need to be called out as the first impact, because this is the first impact we're describing in the article. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article was good as it was with "The first impact was that of..." because it clarifies the first attack. Also, "flew" is mentioned just two sentences afterward at: {{blue|"American Airlines Flight 77 flew towards"}}. That is why something different should be written in the first attack and I prefer the former version. ] (]) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Again, we don't need to clarify that it was the first attack. It's the first one we're describing, it's right there. Plus {{tq|"The first impact was that of...}} is just clumsy English. |
|
|
::''If'' you can convince a consensus of people here that specifying it was the first impact matters, I'd go with: |
|
⚫ |
::{{tq|Ringleader ] flew ] into the ] of the World Trade Center complex in ] at 8:46 am, making it the first plane to impact a building.}} — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It seems we won't reach an agreement here, and that's cool. I guess it's best to let others chime in. ] (]) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::u should change it to smd lil nga ] (]) 03:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. ] (]) 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
:We don't typically enact protection ahead of time. Some years barely anything happens, others we need protection. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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. ] (]) 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
::THis is an issue of a technical violation, but I am unsure its all that contentious. ] (]) 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 ) and using it here makes Misplaced Pages appear biased since, effectively, editors of individual pages determine what is and isn’t deserving of compliance with MOS:TERRORISM. ] (]) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There does seem to be a double standard here ]. ] (]) 17:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::My edit 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? ] (]) 18:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:::Simply put, the attribution is in the article itself, see ]. 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. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{Edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
|
] (]) 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
i will add more information |
|
|
:What information? ] (]) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ⸺(])] 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. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think that's true. ] (]) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please see ]. ] (]) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
|
{{hattop|]. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors. |
|
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors. |
|
|
|
|
Line 318: |
Line 273: |
|
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:We go by what RS say we are not ] just to appease some people's feelings. ] (]) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hatbottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== Pre-Removal Discussion: Dancing Israelis == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 terrorist attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 == |
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
|
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." ] (]) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Hatnote == |
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], the reason given for the addition of the {{tlx|Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. You can read the FBI report here: Thanks! ] (]) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
:I think otherwise, but whatever. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on lead collage of photos == |
|
:] is on you to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. – ] (]) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}} |
|
|
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=92F7E6E}} |
|
|
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support'''. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – ] 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. ] (]) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:::That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ah, no worries. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. ] (]) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? ] (]) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Do you have any alternative suggestions? ] (]) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. ] (]) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Strongly oppose:''' There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. ] (]) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the '''exact moment''' the plane crashed into the WTC? ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:::Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. ] (]) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' The version ] supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like ] and ] have been making ]. In that conversation, I see no input from those who wanted to update the collage. However, now that Chronus has initiated this RfC I hope there will be more input from those who support the change. |
|
|
:I suggest keeping the current collage, but still working on the newer one to get it to a place where there is more agreement on improvements. Maybe the newer collage should have the same images as the current one? Or half the same ones? It is possible Butterscotch5 is right that the newer version isn't featuring the best images. To me, the newer version seems better because those with aging eyes can click on the individual images to see much larger versions and read the captions to better understand what they are seeing. This seems better than a single image file composed of several smaller ones, with a fairly large block of text to read through that describes them. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">] and ]</span> 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support (but keep current main image)''' Functionally, I think the proposed collage is better, the way each image is separate and has its own caption. It can be a bit unwieldy for some to click on a collage and scroll through it as one giant image. Also, the three separate images for the Pentagon crash seem unnecessary. But I agree with Kowal above that the current main status quo image is more "iconic". Showing the moment of impact with the explosion might feel more sensational but ultimately isn't important. The dark billowing smoke coming out of the towers is the ominous image that most people have in mind when they think of that day, and I think it actually captures the emotion of the day better than the fireball picture. ]] 22:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support with modification''' The current collage is rather crowded because it wants to capture so much of an extraordinarily complex and sophisticated attack as well as some of its consequences. I'd even say to cut down the proposed collage so as to represent one image per attack site (Pentagon, Towers, Flight 93). I think that'd improve visibility in keeping with HiLo48's concerns. |
|
|
:I'd also propose resizing the images to be equally large. I think doing so would prevent the suggestion that one attack site is more important or significant than another based on size alone, which I personally currently perceive in the proposed collage. ] (]) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (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.
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)