Talk:September 11 attacks

“United States” in lead

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)

Why, is it likly people will need to know what we mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopedia, we can't assume that everyone knows what the United States is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely you are not serious? (Note: I live in the opposite side of the world to the US).14.2.196.234 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. Wikipedia can't make any assumption about its readers other than that they are literate in English. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone literate in English knows what the United States is. We do not assume our readers are completely ignorant of the world, WP:SKYBLUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That has to do with citations, not linking. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's the same concept. We don't need to link to the United States, in an article about an attack against the United States, in the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• Incredulous oppose. Because of the superfluity of "terrorist", that's why not. You prop up your plea for lengthening the title by citing WP:CONCISE, which says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". Uh-huh. I suggest that "September 11 attacks" (i) is brief, and (ii) provides sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SNOW close. There's no ambiguity with the original wording (at least not one that would be solved by the addition of the word "terrorist", as other attacks on other September 11s have also involved terrorists), and if sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area is 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)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION: 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)

• Oppose and SNOW close. There's nothing confusing here, and citing CONCISE is... bizarre, considering you're making the title longer, while clarifying nothing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This brings completely unnecessary clarity. In addition, the fact they were terrorist attacks is already mentioned in the first sentence, so any confusion as to whether it is a government attack or a terrorist attack is rapidly shut down during almost any readers first read through. On top of that, if the new title goes in the opening sentence, it simply clutters up the sentence by repeated information. In general it is an unnecessary change, and this argument should be shut down. I would agree with applying WP:SNOW in this case. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Snow Oppose, the September 11 attacks are a widely known common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose- Common name and what is is mostly called LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica as noted above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, the current is common and the proposed may be WP:OVERPRECISE and less WP:CONCISE, all just to emphasise the type of attack. DankJae 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

"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)

 Done — Goszei (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC
• 3rd row, left to right: A firefighter requests
  assistance at World Trade Center site;
  An engine from Flight 93 is recovered
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames