This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
STOP REMOVING THE NEUTRALITY DISPUTED SYMBOL. You are not allowed until the issue has been resolved. And it has NOT. End of story. ( MavereX ( talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
It's funny how we have Enlisted and Discharged US Military Personnel (VegitaU for example) Watching this page closely and reverting simple things like that the neutrality of this page is disputed. I did that because if you look at this talk page the NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED. But no, I get threatened that my editing rights will be revoked. This is ridiculous. SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA! Shame on you for having such a rigged article, and deeming it a "good article". This page is against everything Wikipedia stands for. Believing the Official story and only the Official story when it has more holes than the USS Liberty [1] I Am Deeply Disturbed that we have Biased US Soldiers hovering over this page protecting it. They should be removed THEIR editing rights. -- MavereX ( talk) 06:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's called capitalizing words to EMPHASIZE MEANING. If that causes you to be deeply disturbed because you think its random, then you must have a severe issue. And yes, I was threatened that if I edit the page in such a way that says the POV is not neutral, that I would be revoked my rights of editing, as it says on my talk page. "This is your final warning" Is a threat. -- MavereX ( talk) 07:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I quote from WP:NPOV
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
Well it is fairly obvious that there is a different viewpoint than from the official story.. and quickly it is growing to not be a minority. If you looked there is not so many hundreds of "conspiracy theories" anymore.. There has been research done and then there's plain facts that help bring this POV to light. It is simply amazing that in world history, no steel structure building has succumbed to fire. Yet we have 3 buildings destruct in virtual freefall, in their own footprint, due to "Fire". It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong there. Why are you admins collectively avoiding such reality? -- MavereX ( talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Examples of buildings which did not collapse from fire:
In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. [2]
In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. [3]
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. [4]
In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. [5]
So we have a fire burn for 56 minutes and collapse WTC1.. simply amazing. Even when It was rated to withstand multiple Boeing 707 Collisions at 600mph [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]-- MavereX ( talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait.. But what about an aircraft and fire? Empire state building had that happen.. oh look it still stands today!
[11] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MavereX (
talk •
contribs)
08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
YES, bbc and cbs news are conspiracy theory web pages! Aren't you intelligent. Way to go brushing off such a deep issue!! -- MavereX ( talk) 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course this article needs a name. However, in coining the name of the article, we do not need to use the name like a title of a TV episode for the introductory paragraph of this article. There is no uniform name for the attacks, unlike an editor who says that the War of 1812 is a name (which is true but differs from this, which has no uniform name yet).
Even the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/september11/ does not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". Also see http://www.whitehouse.gov/september11/index.html
To now degenerate the intro into a TV episode or a goofy news story where there is theme music and a made up title/name (tonight's episode "Standdown with Saddam" or "Inferno in Iraq") is not very encyclopedic.
Let's just say something like "On September 11, 2001, there was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in ......." Presumptive ( talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Interim conclusion:
1. There is a consensus on the title, discussed in 2004 in archive 3. There is no opposition above.
2. There is consensus to follow the Manual of Style.
New information:
MOS says "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".
Archive 3 shows that there is no agreed upon title but that there was a vote on the best way to summarize the event. Furthermore, even the U.S. White House does not use the Wikipedia title name. the WP title is a made up title, much like a title of a TV episode. The use of the title in the introductory sentence is awkward and makes it appear like a TV episode.
As a result, I am changing the title temporarily until there is a discussion to why we want an awkward introductory sentence instead of a scholarly one. Presumptive ( talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the old intro was poor prose. Using the word to define the word is bad and very amateurish. "The attacks were a series of coordinated attacks..." Why not "A car is a kind of car"?
Presumptive (
talk)
04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
History:
There were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States often referred to as September 11, 2001 attacks, 9/11, or simply described without a proper name [1]
On September 11, 2001 attacks took place in the United States by al-Qaeda against high profile targets in the United States (often referred to as 9/11).
On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
Presumptive ( talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has a name. The name is the one ordinarily given to the attacks described in the article. To begin the article in a manner such as "There were a series of coordinated attacks... on Ssept 11, 2001" removes the specific focus of the article. Articles do not get written about events without names. The proper name of the article is the one it has & the article's task is to describe what the September 11, 2001 attacks were. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Shocking? yes Dastardly? yes. Comparable in their effects? only slightly. -- JimWae ( talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ SectOR}} This tag is in the article at the top.
{{RFC [topic] | section= Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks!! reason=Whether it is good or bad proses to use the word "attacks" to define "attack" and whether or not it is original research to use a wikipedia-created title in the introductory sentence rather than the terminology used by respected reliable sources such as CNN, CBC, CBS, and the BBC. !! time=02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)}}
I have looked at reliable sources, like the BBC, CBC, CBS, and CNN. They do NOT refer to the attacks as "September 11, 2001 attaks". Therefore, we are allowing original research. If one calls for OR too much, they can be banned from WP.
There needs to be a title of the article and a 2004 discussion chose the title. I do not dispute this. However, insistance that we use the title in the introduction (which is not required by the Manual of Style, just suggested in most cases) is Original Research as we are now calling the event by the artificial wikipedia name.
See the following:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/11/september11/main3250664.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/
None of these links refer to "September 11, 2001 attacks", just Wikipedia in an act of Original Research.
The proposed solution is to not use the original research title in the introduction. There are many, many ways to phrase the introduction in a NPOV way without OR. I will propose one way in the article. Presumptive ( talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) using hijacked aircraft took place in the United States by al-Qaeda operatives.
Using "The" makes it original research by creating a title for the event, a title that is not uniformly used. This use of a "TV episode name" is a common mistake in WP. It happens because some editors are interpreting the MOS too restrictively and combining it with a made up title. Presumptive ( talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Look here, I'll let you win the revert battle as I won't put back the OR tag for now. Removing it without resolution is a "no-no".
Google "September 11, 2001 attacks" and see what you get. The top article is Wikipedia. That's an indication of OR. Then look down the first page. Nobody else uses that phrase. There is no link to BBC, CNN, CBC, CBS, NBC.
The fact remains that we have to create a title. However, we need not use the exact title in the article as that creates original research because others don't use the exact phrase. Presumptive ( talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
CBC DOES call them Sep 11 attacks - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/03/24/binladen040324.html --AND http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/04/08/condoleezza_911_040408.html JimWae ( talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In view of the debates, I propose that we list some recent sentences. Starting on July 28, 2008, we can comment on those listed. We can decide which ones are awkward and which ones are good. Before July 28, 2008, you can list some proposals. These dates are just suggestions. You can comment earlier and leave proposals later than the dates suggested. Presumptive ( talk) 03:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
2. On September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) took place coordinated by al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.
3. (Title of article remains the same) On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States took place.
4. A series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States occured on September 11, 2001 and have been referred to by various names such as 9/11, September 11th attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks, etc.
5. (Title of article remains the same)
On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated hijackings by al-Qaeda operatives occured using hijacked commercial airliners to destroy high profile buildings in New York and Washington.
6. The September 11, 2001 attacks and 9-11 are one of several terms used to describe a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.
6b. The September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11th, and 9/11 are several terms used to describe a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.
7. variations of the above with consideration of a discussion several sections above to whether "upon the United States" is proper.
After 13 days of discussion, version 6b, which incorporates added suggestions by Peter Grey, is now used as the introductory sentence in the article. To avoid edit warring, please refrain from changing the introductory sentence unless there is an adequate discussion of 10 or more days. We can change it but must not repetitively or frequently change it without discussion. Presumptive ( talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the name from Newark to Newark International as all the other airports were given the same courtesy except Newark. (near the beginning of the article).
Any disputes to this, you may discuss it here. Presumptive ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why the following two articles manage to refrain from using the word terrorist, especially as they have both been recently edited by both vegita and ice cold beer, who are both very vocal in this talk page, in favour of using the term terrorist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
The two above articles refer to the people involved as hijackers (as requested for this article) however the above two editors seem to have no issue with the use of the word hijackers, apart from this particular article.
How is it that these articles use the term hijacker but this particular article cannot?
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I consider all sections that use the term terrorist, without attributing its use to a particular person or organisation to be in breach of wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
The POV tag should remain until we have come to some form of consensus. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I request that all editors who have a problem with the wording of the article provide arguments as to why their request should be given more weight than all the previous requests that have requested the exact same thing. If they cannot, they should step aside. -- Tarage ( talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I left for the day, I noticed a tiny edit that's actually indicative of a bigger problem. I've checked the Chicago Manual and Diane Hacker's Writer's Reference. It's true—a comma is supposed to go after a date in the Month DD, YYYY format. Not sure how to fix that besides changing the article title, (no, not to "September 11, 2001", Presumptive) but it is something that's technically grammatically incorrect. Maybe someone can point me to the proper policy regarding this. Peace out. -- Veggy ( talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Someone should tell that to the
7 July 2005 London bombings people. --
Veggy (
talk)
20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, that you are trying to add punctuation that is usually applied to sentences, to a title. That is, if you are writing a sentence, and the sentence is about the September 11, 2001, attacks, you should do as I. For a title, I'd not worry about that, and instead worry about capitalizing the A in attacks. I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines suggest capitalizing the first and last words, but it would be correct grammar as I know it. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a huge issue. — Slipgrid ( talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Ken Feinberg interview, 30 mins, ABC Radio National, 15 July 2008. The emotional and legal aspects of allocating the $7 bn compensation for the victims, under the Congressional act. The audio stream is online for another two weeks; the transcript is permanently downloadable. I don't hang about this page, so if people want to add it, please do. Tony (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, we have officially broken the boarder. I suggest we archive these more lengthy 'debates' and move on. I for one am sick of arguing about single words and commas. -- Tarage ( talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*This is a bullet.
**This is a tabbed bullet.
*This is a bullet.
:*This is a tabbed bullet.
I wanted to add 2009 New York City airplane scare to the "See also" section, but there is no such section. Why is that? Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
STOP REMOVING THE NEUTRALITY DISPUTED SYMBOL. You are not allowed until the issue has been resolved. And it has NOT. End of story. ( MavereX ( talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
It's funny how we have Enlisted and Discharged US Military Personnel (VegitaU for example) Watching this page closely and reverting simple things like that the neutrality of this page is disputed. I did that because if you look at this talk page the NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED. But no, I get threatened that my editing rights will be revoked. This is ridiculous. SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA! Shame on you for having such a rigged article, and deeming it a "good article". This page is against everything Wikipedia stands for. Believing the Official story and only the Official story when it has more holes than the USS Liberty [1] I Am Deeply Disturbed that we have Biased US Soldiers hovering over this page protecting it. They should be removed THEIR editing rights. -- MavereX ( talk) 06:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's called capitalizing words to EMPHASIZE MEANING. If that causes you to be deeply disturbed because you think its random, then you must have a severe issue. And yes, I was threatened that if I edit the page in such a way that says the POV is not neutral, that I would be revoked my rights of editing, as it says on my talk page. "This is your final warning" Is a threat. -- MavereX ( talk) 07:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I quote from WP:NPOV
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
Well it is fairly obvious that there is a different viewpoint than from the official story.. and quickly it is growing to not be a minority. If you looked there is not so many hundreds of "conspiracy theories" anymore.. There has been research done and then there's plain facts that help bring this POV to light. It is simply amazing that in world history, no steel structure building has succumbed to fire. Yet we have 3 buildings destruct in virtual freefall, in their own footprint, due to "Fire". It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong there. Why are you admins collectively avoiding such reality? -- MavereX ( talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Examples of buildings which did not collapse from fire:
In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. [2]
In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. [3]
In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. [4]
In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. [5]
So we have a fire burn for 56 minutes and collapse WTC1.. simply amazing. Even when It was rated to withstand multiple Boeing 707 Collisions at 600mph [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]-- MavereX ( talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait.. But what about an aircraft and fire? Empire state building had that happen.. oh look it still stands today!
[11] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MavereX (
talk •
contribs)
08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
YES, bbc and cbs news are conspiracy theory web pages! Aren't you intelligent. Way to go brushing off such a deep issue!! -- MavereX ( talk) 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course this article needs a name. However, in coining the name of the article, we do not need to use the name like a title of a TV episode for the introductory paragraph of this article. There is no uniform name for the attacks, unlike an editor who says that the War of 1812 is a name (which is true but differs from this, which has no uniform name yet).
Even the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/september11/ does not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". Also see http://www.whitehouse.gov/september11/index.html
To now degenerate the intro into a TV episode or a goofy news story where there is theme music and a made up title/name (tonight's episode "Standdown with Saddam" or "Inferno in Iraq") is not very encyclopedic.
Let's just say something like "On September 11, 2001, there was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in ......." Presumptive ( talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Interim conclusion:
1. There is a consensus on the title, discussed in 2004 in archive 3. There is no opposition above.
2. There is consensus to follow the Manual of Style.
New information:
MOS says "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".
Archive 3 shows that there is no agreed upon title but that there was a vote on the best way to summarize the event. Furthermore, even the U.S. White House does not use the Wikipedia title name. the WP title is a made up title, much like a title of a TV episode. The use of the title in the introductory sentence is awkward and makes it appear like a TV episode.
As a result, I am changing the title temporarily until there is a discussion to why we want an awkward introductory sentence instead of a scholarly one. Presumptive ( talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the old intro was poor prose. Using the word to define the word is bad and very amateurish. "The attacks were a series of coordinated attacks..." Why not "A car is a kind of car"?
Presumptive (
talk)
04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
History:
There were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States often referred to as September 11, 2001 attacks, 9/11, or simply described without a proper name [1]
On September 11, 2001 attacks took place in the United States by al-Qaeda against high profile targets in the United States (often referred to as 9/11).
On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
Presumptive ( talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has a name. The name is the one ordinarily given to the attacks described in the article. To begin the article in a manner such as "There were a series of coordinated attacks... on Ssept 11, 2001" removes the specific focus of the article. Articles do not get written about events without names. The proper name of the article is the one it has & the article's task is to describe what the September 11, 2001 attacks were. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Shocking? yes Dastardly? yes. Comparable in their effects? only slightly. -- JimWae ( talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ SectOR}} This tag is in the article at the top.
{{RFC [topic] | section= Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks!! reason=Whether it is good or bad proses to use the word "attacks" to define "attack" and whether or not it is original research to use a wikipedia-created title in the introductory sentence rather than the terminology used by respected reliable sources such as CNN, CBC, CBS, and the BBC. !! time=02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)}}
I have looked at reliable sources, like the BBC, CBC, CBS, and CNN. They do NOT refer to the attacks as "September 11, 2001 attaks". Therefore, we are allowing original research. If one calls for OR too much, they can be banned from WP.
There needs to be a title of the article and a 2004 discussion chose the title. I do not dispute this. However, insistance that we use the title in the introduction (which is not required by the Manual of Style, just suggested in most cases) is Original Research as we are now calling the event by the artificial wikipedia name.
See the following:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/11/september11/main3250664.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/
None of these links refer to "September 11, 2001 attacks", just Wikipedia in an act of Original Research.
The proposed solution is to not use the original research title in the introduction. There are many, many ways to phrase the introduction in a NPOV way without OR. I will propose one way in the article. Presumptive ( talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) using hijacked aircraft took place in the United States by al-Qaeda operatives.
Using "The" makes it original research by creating a title for the event, a title that is not uniformly used. This use of a "TV episode name" is a common mistake in WP. It happens because some editors are interpreting the MOS too restrictively and combining it with a made up title. Presumptive ( talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Look here, I'll let you win the revert battle as I won't put back the OR tag for now. Removing it without resolution is a "no-no".
Google "September 11, 2001 attacks" and see what you get. The top article is Wikipedia. That's an indication of OR. Then look down the first page. Nobody else uses that phrase. There is no link to BBC, CNN, CBC, CBS, NBC.
The fact remains that we have to create a title. However, we need not use the exact title in the article as that creates original research because others don't use the exact phrase. Presumptive ( talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
CBC DOES call them Sep 11 attacks - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/03/24/binladen040324.html --AND http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/04/08/condoleezza_911_040408.html JimWae ( talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In view of the debates, I propose that we list some recent sentences. Starting on July 28, 2008, we can comment on those listed. We can decide which ones are awkward and which ones are good. Before July 28, 2008, you can list some proposals. These dates are just suggestions. You can comment earlier and leave proposals later than the dates suggested. Presumptive ( talk) 03:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.
2. On September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) took place coordinated by al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.
3. (Title of article remains the same) On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States took place.
4. A series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States occured on September 11, 2001 and have been referred to by various names such as 9/11, September 11th attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks, etc.
5. (Title of article remains the same)
On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated hijackings by al-Qaeda operatives occured using hijacked commercial airliners to destroy high profile buildings in New York and Washington.
6. The September 11, 2001 attacks and 9-11 are one of several terms used to describe a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.
6b. The September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11th, and 9/11 are several terms used to describe a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.
7. variations of the above with consideration of a discussion several sections above to whether "upon the United States" is proper.
After 13 days of discussion, version 6b, which incorporates added suggestions by Peter Grey, is now used as the introductory sentence in the article. To avoid edit warring, please refrain from changing the introductory sentence unless there is an adequate discussion of 10 or more days. We can change it but must not repetitively or frequently change it without discussion. Presumptive ( talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the name from Newark to Newark International as all the other airports were given the same courtesy except Newark. (near the beginning of the article).
Any disputes to this, you may discuss it here. Presumptive ( talk) 04:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why the following two articles manage to refrain from using the word terrorist, especially as they have both been recently edited by both vegita and ice cold beer, who are both very vocal in this talk page, in favour of using the term terrorist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
The two above articles refer to the people involved as hijackers (as requested for this article) however the above two editors seem to have no issue with the use of the word hijackers, apart from this particular article.
How is it that these articles use the term hijacker but this particular article cannot?
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I consider all sections that use the term terrorist, without attributing its use to a particular person or organisation to be in breach of wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
The POV tag should remain until we have come to some form of consensus. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I request that all editors who have a problem with the wording of the article provide arguments as to why their request should be given more weight than all the previous requests that have requested the exact same thing. If they cannot, they should step aside. -- Tarage ( talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I left for the day, I noticed a tiny edit that's actually indicative of a bigger problem. I've checked the Chicago Manual and Diane Hacker's Writer's Reference. It's true—a comma is supposed to go after a date in the Month DD, YYYY format. Not sure how to fix that besides changing the article title, (no, not to "September 11, 2001", Presumptive) but it is something that's technically grammatically incorrect. Maybe someone can point me to the proper policy regarding this. Peace out. -- Veggy ( talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Someone should tell that to the
7 July 2005 London bombings people. --
Veggy (
talk)
20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, that you are trying to add punctuation that is usually applied to sentences, to a title. That is, if you are writing a sentence, and the sentence is about the September 11, 2001, attacks, you should do as I. For a title, I'd not worry about that, and instead worry about capitalizing the A in attacks. I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines suggest capitalizing the first and last words, but it would be correct grammar as I know it. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a huge issue. — Slipgrid ( talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Ken Feinberg interview, 30 mins, ABC Radio National, 15 July 2008. The emotional and legal aspects of allocating the $7 bn compensation for the victims, under the Congressional act. The audio stream is online for another two weeks; the transcript is permanently downloadable. I don't hang about this page, so if people want to add it, please do. Tony (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, we have officially broken the boarder. I suggest we archive these more lengthy 'debates' and move on. I for one am sick of arguing about single words and commas. -- Tarage ( talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*This is a bullet.
**This is a tabbed bullet.
*This is a bullet.
:*This is a tabbed bullet.
I wanted to add 2009 New York City airplane scare to the "See also" section, but there is no such section. Why is that? Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)