This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?
A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to
reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page
in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read
the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be
polite and support your views with citations from
reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)?
A2:
Wikipedia:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Wikipedia. The
consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the
United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.
[1] |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the “United States” in the lead be a link to the U.S.’s article, being the first mention of the country in the page? Jackvoeller ( talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: It has snowed heavily today. Not moved. ( non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – They're terrorist attacks, so why not extend the name so everyone knows that it's terrorism? WP:CONCISE GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject areais the goal (per the comment above) I'd say that criteria is already met – this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not sure how WP:CONCISE can be cited to lengthen a title. — Czello ( music) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.As for other articles with this name, this is ambiguously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A read of WP:CONCISE, which was linked in the move rationale without elaboration, appears to solidly refute such a move. - Aoidh ( talk) 12:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?
A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to
reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page
in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read
the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be
polite and support your views with citations from
reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)?
A2:
Wikipedia:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Wikipedia. The
consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the
United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.
[1] |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
September 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
September 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the “United States” in the lead be a link to the U.S.’s article, being the first mention of the country in the page? Jackvoeller ( talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: It has snowed heavily today. Not moved. ( non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – They're terrorist attacks, so why not extend the name so everyone knows that it's terrorism? WP:CONCISE GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject areais the goal (per the comment above) I'd say that criteria is already met – this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not sure how WP:CONCISE can be cited to lengthen a title. — Czello ( music) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.As for other articles with this name, this is ambiguously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A read of WP:CONCISE, which was linked in the move rationale without elaboration, appears to solidly refute such a move. - Aoidh ( talk) 12:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)