From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleSeptember 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleSeptember 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 26, 2004 Featured article reviewDemoted
January 10, 2005 Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 27, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2008 Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2008 Peer reviewReviewed
July 10, 2008 Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 20, 2008 Good article reassessmentKept
June 19, 2010 Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2011 Good article nomineeNot listed
July 25, 2011 Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2011 Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2011 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2011 Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 24, 2013 Good article nomineeNot listed
July 13, 2015 Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2018 Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, and September 11, 2023.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

"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) reply

 DoneGoszei ( talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply
just done. Cena332 ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 15 May 2024

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) reply

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) reply
I see nothing new from then last time. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Seriously, no. This perennial request is going nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose Already previously discussed. Absolutely no need to discuss again. David J Johnson ( talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleSeptember 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleSeptember 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 26, 2004 Featured article reviewDemoted
January 10, 2005 Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 27, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2008 Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2008 Peer reviewReviewed
July 10, 2008 Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 20, 2008 Good article reassessmentKept
June 19, 2010 Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2011 Good article nomineeNot listed
July 25, 2011 Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2011 Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2011 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2011 Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 24, 2013 Good article nomineeNot listed
July 13, 2015 Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2018 Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, and September 11, 2023.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

"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) reply

 DoneGoszei ( talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply
just done. Cena332 ( talk) 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 15 May 2024

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) reply

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) reply
I see nothing new from then last time. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Seriously, no. This perennial request is going nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose Already previously discussed. Absolutely no need to discuss again. David J Johnson ( talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook