Revision as of 20:46, 24 May 2008 editVeggies (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,322 editsm Reverted 6 edits by Caesarjbsquitti; I've already warned you. (TW)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:51, 6 January 2025 edit undoAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,859 editsm Reverted edit by 2601:410:8180:FE10:20A1:A5A2:5D0B:AE13 (talk) to last version by UnidentifiabilityTag: Rollback |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{semiprotected|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{warning| In a 2008 ], administrators were given the power to impose ] on any editor working on articles concerning the ]. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. }} |
|
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
{{Peer review|archive=1}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=RBP |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{Round In Circles}} |
|
|
{{Off topic warning}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=RBP |
|
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|action1oldid=2188400 |
|
|action1oldid=2188400 |
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2date=February 26, 2004 |
|
|action2date=February 26, 2004 |
Line 19: |
Line 15: |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2oldid=2553382 |
|
|action2oldid=2553382 |
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |
|
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|action3oldid=9272183 |
|
|action3oldid=9272183 |
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
|action4=FAC |
|
|action4date=29 December 2006 |
|
|action4date=29 December 2006 |
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|action4oldid=96577662 |
|
|action4oldid=96577662 |
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
|action5=GAN |
|
|action5date=27 January 2007 |
|
|action5date=27 January 2007 |
|
|action5result=failed |
|
|action5result=failed |
|
|action5oldid=103691180 |
|
|action5oldid=103691180 |
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
|action6=GAN |
|
|action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32 |
|
|action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32 |
|
|action6result=failed |
|
|action6result=failed |
|
|action6oldid=107932109 |
|
|action6oldid=107932109 |
|
|
|
|
|action7=GAN |
|
|action7=GAN |
|
|action7date=October 16, 2007 |
|
|action7date=October 16, 2007 |
|
|action7result=failed |
|
|action7result=failed |
|
|action7oldid=164806833 |
|
|action7oldid=164806833 |
|
|
|
|
|action8=GAN |
|
|action8=GAN |
|
|action8date=May 19, 2008 |
|
|action8date=May 19, 2008 |
|
|
|action8link=Talk:September 11%2C 2001 attacks/Archive 42#GA review |
|
|action8result=listed |
|
|action8result=listed |
|
|action8link=Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#GA Review Final Comments |
|
|
|action8oldid=213408835 |
|
|action8oldid=213408835 |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{USProject|class=GA|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=GA|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York|class=GA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WPNYC|importance=top|class=GA|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{Skyscrapers|importance=top|class=GA|nested=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=PR |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive index|mask=Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|
|
|
|action9date=01:58, 29 May 2008 |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=History|WPCD=yes|small=yes|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action9result=reviewed |
|
|
|action9oldid=215415204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=FAC |
|
{{FAOL|Bosnian|bs:Napadi 11. septembra 2001.|lang2=Swedish|link2=sv:11 september-attackerna|lang3=Malayalam|link3=ml:സെപ്റ്റംബര് 11ലെ ഭീകരാക്രമണം|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action10date=02:53, 10 July 2008 |
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive3 |
|
|
|action10result=not promoted |
|
|
|action10oldid=224667994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=GAR |
|
==GA Review Final Comments== |
|
|
|
|action11date=21:18, 20 August 2008 |
|
Great work, I've looked at all the relevant points above and will now read through the article again just to make sure. Anything I come up with I will list below this, but it is unlikely that any of the comments raised will hold up the GA nomination, they're just for future reference. |
|
|
|
|action11link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA1 |
|
*I think the primary contributors to the article should look very closely at the "See Also" section to make sure that all the links there are important and strictly relevant and that any that are are not missing. |
|
|
|
|action11result=kept |
|
*The prose standard is good overall, but I'm noticing a few repetitions and slightly clumsy phrasing. Its good enough for GA, but might have a tough time at FAC. See if you can get a few uninvolved editors to run over the prose before attempting that (if you drop a line on my talk page I might be able to give it a go myself before you nominate). |
|
|
|
|action11oldid=233054238 |
|
:*Take a look at the hate crimes section, because it repeats itself about Sikhs and could perhaps be phrased a little better. |
|
|
*"The Commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism" - Give examples of this criticism. |
|
|
*"were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report. This was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue University." - What was confirmed? The stairwells thing or the seperate report? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=GAR |
|
None of these problems are significant enough to warrant any further delay of GA status. Congratulations, this is a well-written and properly sourced article on a hugely controversial and contentious issue that must have been a real challenge to maintain partly due to the sheer volume of information that could be added. Good luck working on the sub-articles and if you need any more input just drop me a line. Regards --] (]) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12date=19 June 2010 |
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1 |
|
|
|action12result=delisted |
|
|
|action12oldid=365085475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=GAC |
|
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" |
|
|
|
|action13date=5 July 2011 |
|
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] |
|
|
|
|action13link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 |
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
|
|
|action13result=not listed |
|
|style="font-size: large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Congrats''' |
|
|
|
|action13oldid=437810140 |
|
|- |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Moldy sandwiches for all! Thanks to everyone's help<br>in achieving Good Article status! ] (]) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=GAN |
|
== WTC 7 == |
|
|
|
|action14date=20:05, 25 July 2011 |
|
|
|action14link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3 |
|
|
|action14result=listed |
|
|
|action14oldid=441341484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action15=PR |
|
The section on the cause of this building's collapse references a preliminary report. The findings in this report are presented in a way that is much more definite than the report says we can be. --] (]) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15date=11:51, 23 August 2011 |
|
:How's that? The building was compromised by fires and collapsed. True. The investigation is ongoing. True. The current hypothesis is the collapse was caused by fire and debris induced structural damage. True. All true and cited, so tell me how it's supposedly more definite. Please read ] and ] regarding previous discussions on this topic. -- ] (]) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
::I was saying that the article expresses it in stronger terms than the report does. I've seen the way you've been acting on here. Don't mind me if I wait for another editor to come along. --] (]) 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15result=reviewed |
|
:::You mean the way I've been reworking the article tirelessly, finding sources, and expertly citing facts? Why thank you, it's good to be noticed. -- ] (]) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15oldid=446303582 |
|
::::The problem ''may'' be the way in which the paragraph is structured (If it's the one I'm looking at - in the Aftermath section under Investigations). I think that material from ''the published, final report on the Twin Towers collapse'' is being quoted immediately before a sentence about ''the ongoing investigation into WTC7''. Is this the problem? It wouldn't be hard to make the distinction clearer. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action16=FAC |
|
==Book references== |
|
|
|
|action16date=14:43, 30 August 2011 |
|
A lot of good work is being done to format the references, add page numbers, etc. But, I am concerned about book references being replaced. If page numbers are needed, I can help with that. In general, books written by experts such as ], ], ], ], etc. are higher quality than news articles, provide more depth, more fact-checking, with more expertise going into them. ]'s book, for example, is the best reference for citing about the interview Fouda did with ] and ]. This part of the interview is also included in his documentary on the attacks - طريق إلى 11 سبتمبر (Road to September 11th). I think that something is being lost by taking these out. --] <small>(])</small> 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
:Whoops. I saw the lack of page numbers as a problem and started replacing those sources with news organizations. I don't have any of the books, so if anyone here does, it would only improve the article further. My only concern would be this opening up to garbage like and . -- ] (]) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action16result=not promoted |
|
::I have accumulated numerous books which cover various aspects in-depth (though I'm going away for the summer and not taking them with). There are also some good documentaries, including ones that PBS produced, and the one I mentioned above by Fouda is excellent though not in English. A huge amount has been written on the attacks, so we need to filter through it and choose the best sources. Of course there is a lot of junk out there too. I'm starting a list here (]) of what I have, what I think are best sources for various aspects. Maybe this would help? --] <small>(])</small> 02:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action16oldid=447487536 |
|
:::That looks good. It's odd though. This is the first lengthy article where a "further reading" section has been completely removed. I think I first showed up at this article when that happened. -- ] (]) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I took out the following, which was in the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed section. Although Lawrence Wright's book is an excellent source (and I have the page number), I think this sentence is overly detailed. |
|
|
:"], ]-winning writer, explains that Atta's commitment solidified in response to the ]i strikes at the beginning of ]." - source: {{cite book | last = Wright | first = Lawrence | authorlink = Lawrence Wright | title = The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 | publisher = ] | date= 2006 | id = ISBN 0-375-41486-X }} |
|
|
Simply saying "Mohamed Atta shared this same motivation." with one sentence to back that up is sufficient. I also swapped the sources for that, back to what was there before. What I put back is more specific (mentioning Israel) and goes with what the paragraph says about KSM. I realize the MSNBC TV documentary is not as widely available, but I still think it's best for now. --] <small>(])</small> 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think all the other changes look good. --] <small>(])</small> 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I still have to get all the accessdates put on the web sources. What a pain ''that's'' been. -- ] (]) 02:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action17=GAR |
|
== Drug connection ? == |
|
|
|
|action17date=16:23, 25 September 2011 |
|
|
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 |
|
|
|action17result=delisted |
|
|
|action17oldid=452181614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action18=GAN |
|
What appears missing from many sources is a possible 'drug connection' to 9-11, even as part of a conspiracy theory ? |
|
|
|
|action18date=May 24, 2013 |
|
|
|action18link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4 |
|
|
|action18result=not promoted |
|
|
|action18oldid=556498139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action19=GAN |
|
As Canadian troops, have found that Afghanistan is providing over 80% of the world's opium supply. <ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|action19date=July 13, 2015 |
|
|
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5 |
|
|
|action19result=promoted |
|
|
|action19oldid=671152132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=World history |
|
Could it be that the attack on 'America' was in part due to America's war on drugs, and or elements intercepting drug shipments to America ? |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|action20 = FAC |
|
|
|action20date = 2018-10-27 |
|
|
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2 |
|
|
|action20result = failed |
|
|
|action20oldid = 865779234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2003-09-11 |
|
Seems that the logic of the situation merits some reference to this. |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=1418792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd2date=2004-09-11 |
|
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2oldid=9955831 |
|
:I have to say I've never heard this one before. And since the Taliban had stopped opium growth before 9/11, no, it's not possible. -- ] (]) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I too am surprised not to have heard of it before now. Do you have a ] for this, or is it just conjecture? We can't just add ] to an article. ] forbids it. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd3date=2005-09-11 |
|
Thats the problem. No source. It was not ever mentioned that Afghanistan was the world's greatest Opium producer, all the talk was about oil. |
|
|
|
|otd3oldid=23006719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd4date=2006-09-11 |
|
Even though much of the conjecture was about oil, never was a drug connection mentioned. |
|
|
|
|otd4oldid=75188318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd5date=2009-09-11 |
|
Just last week the Canadian Foreign Minister was showcased on the CBC dating the former wife of a Drug Dealer. |
|
|
|
|otd5oldid=313246231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd6date=2012-09-11 |
|
So is there a connection ? |
|
|
|
|otd6oldid=511650593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd7date=2013-09-11 |
|
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd7oldid=572507707 |
|
:No source. Nothing more to discuss. It isn't mentioned on the article. -- ] (]) 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd8date=2017-09-11 |
|
:Caesar, this page is not for discussing the attacks, or the possibility of drug connections. It's for ]. The problem is, we can't do that without reliable sources (because of our ]). So I'm afraid that this topic isn't going to go anywhere, unless someone can find a published source discussing it. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd8oldid=800113517 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd9date=2018-09-11 |
|
I look at the current "motives" for the attack and I don't see any logical motives ? |
|
|
|
|otd9oldid=859078369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd10date=2020-09-11 |
|
It is only conjecture, but if some part of the US establishment is interfering in your illegal activity, who are you going to report this to ? |
|
|
|
|otd10oldid=977871368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd11date=2023-09-11 |
|
There was a movie to this effect some years ago. |
|
|
|
|otd11oldid=1174521963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn1date=2001-09-11 |
|
Seems like the other 'suggestions' in the thread are pure conjecture as well.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn2date=2002-09-11 |
|
Just asking for a logical explanation to why "they' did what 'they' did...so far very little there that makes logical sense ? |
|
|
|
|otd12date=2024-09-11|otd12oldid=1245107774 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}} |
|
|
{{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 Disaster management|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Intel=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{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 Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ |
|
|
| author = Noam Cohen |
|
|
| date = 11 September 2011 |
|
|
| month = January |
|
|
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Brian Keegan |
|
Just asking for a logical explanation. |
|
|
|
| title2 = How 9/11 Shaped Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/wikipedia-september-11-breaking-news.html |
|
|
| date2 = November 17, 2020 |
|
|
| quote2 = |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author3 = Stephen Harrison |
|
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title3 = How Misplaced Pages Grew Up With the War on Terror |
|
|
| org3 = ] |
|
|
| url3 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-september-11-20th-anniversary.html |
|
|
| date3 = September 8, 2021 |
|
|
| quote3 = |
|
|
| archiveurl3 = |
|
|
| archivedate3 = |
|
|
| accessdate3 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author4 = Alex Pasternack |
|
|
| title4 = How 9/11 turned a new site called Misplaced Pages into history’s crowdsourced front page |
|
|
| org4 = ] |
|
|
| url4 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90674998/how-9-11-turned-a-new-site-called-wikipedia-into-historys-crowdsourced-front-page |
|
|
| date4 = September 11, 2021 |
|
|
| quote4 = |
|
|
| archiveurl4 = |
|
|
| archivedate4 = |
|
|
| accessdate4 = September 13, 2021 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=tpm|consensus-required=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
:This isn't a discussion forum. If you don't feel the motives given by Al-Qaeda are logical, then that's your opinion — they clearly disagree. Nonetheless, this isn't a place to discuss which motives are, or are not, logical. Please confine your comments to the article, and not the subject. --] (]) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|89}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual report|]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 8 2013|Sep 7 2014|Sep 6 2015|Sep 4 2016|Sep 11 2016|Sep 10 2017|Sep 9 2018|Sep 8 2019|Sep 6 2020|Sep 13 2020|Aug 29 2021|until|Sep 12 2021|Sep 8 2024}} |
|
|
<!-- {{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}} --> |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Moved''', 17 January 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, '''Not moved''', 21 October 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, '''Not moved''', 14 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Procedural close''', 23 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ]. |
|
|
|collapse=yes}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks|date=22 October 2015}}<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slogans_and_terms_derived_from_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=687019474 --> |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 64 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
Somehow a previous link has not shown up, but here is another. |
|
|
|
{{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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
Some truths no one wants printed ? |
|
|
:What does '''that''' have to do with anything 9/11 related? -- ] (]) 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I will respond to your question on my talk page, as I see an ambush approaching...( it is hoped that this will serve as a model for future cases) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam. |
|
|
::The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article. |
|
|
::I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. ] (]) 01:19, 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) |
|
|
: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 ] == |
|
:Please keep discussion centralized. It's hard to follow, otherwise. --] (]) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
:Good. That's where these off-tangent discussions belong. -- ] (]) 03:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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 ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
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 == |
|
Does this article mention the PBS special Frontline, that came to the conclusion that the Bush whitehouse needed something to invade Iraq, and built "Al-Quida", when in fact this was suppose to be about Bin Ladin...and whatever ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
(Just a quick note about a movie, anyone know the name that outlines how a 'special agent force' used Air forces to attack a drug cartel in Columbia, with the intent of making it appear like a drug war ?) |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
VegitaU what are your qualification about this issue ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], 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) |
|
Anyway, I will leave this issue for now. |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}} |
|
:*''"this was suppose to be about Bin Ladin...and whatever"'' |
|
|
|
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=92F7E6E}} |
|
:Since you wrote a short story-length account here and came to this enthralling conclusion, let me just waste a sentence exclaiming how clear it is to me now why we're losing the war. -- ] (]) 04:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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)