Talk:September 11

--mav 00:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page

Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

September 11: National Day of Catalonia Alexander Hamilton 1297 – First War of Scottish Independence: Scottish forces under Andrew Moray and William Wallace defeated English troops at the Battle of Stirling Bridge on the River Forth. 1789 – Alexander Hamilton (pictured), co-writer of The Federalist Papers, became the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. 1978 – British medical photographer Janet Parker became the last recorded person to die from smallpox, leading to a debate on whether the virus should be preserved. 1995 – Mir EO-19, the first expedition to the Russian space station Mir launched on an American Space Shuttle, returned to Earth after approximately 75 days in space. Stephen Hagiochristophorites (d. 1185) Paul Nahaolelua (b. 1806) Mary Watson Whitney (b. 1847) Issy Smith (d. 1940) More anniversaries: September 10 September 11 September 12

---

11 September attacks

I suggest the entry in the Deaths section about the 11th September attacks is completely out of place. The event is listed in the events section and there's a mention at the top of the page, which is also questionable. I don't know of any similar reference in the Deaths section of any "Day" page: Dresden bombing, Coventry blitz, Pearl Harbor, Asian Tsunami, none of them are so referenced, and quite rightly. I'll list Barbara Olson and David Angell in their own right. That is surely sufficient. Arcturus 11:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it a habit of putting things into articles multiple times, but in this instance, I think it is used as a sort of diasambiguation notice. Many people looking for the 11 September attacks will look up "September 11" and they should be pointed to the specific page with a note near the top of the page. The reason those other incidents are not listed the same way, is that those events are not commonly referred to as just the day, like "September 11". Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing about people dieing in the pearl harbor attacks, I think it's quite out of place that these "average" people are listed in the deaths section.

They're not average, they have articles. Olsen and Angell would certainly have qualified to be listed anyway, even if they'd died of heart attacks, O'Neill probably would too. Average Earthman 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a clarification -- previous it said the attacks "destroyed the World Trade Center"; the World Trade Center is a complex of 7 buildings. The towers and I think one other building were destroyed. Since the towers were the target and the other building isn't really famous, I just changed it to "destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center" - Ryanluck 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually look at the article; all seven buildings of the WTC were destroyed. --Golbez 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, only 3 of the seven were destroyed. I'm not sure what article you saw; the wikipedia article clearly says only the twin towers and WTC building 7 were destroyed.

Get your eyes checked. --Golbez 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. The south tower (2 WTC) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. The north tower (1 WTC) fell at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:46 a.m. A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell."

After that no building collapsed in the article. Although they were probably very much damaged. You get your eyes checked

The word "collapsed" is different from the word "destroyed". --Golbez 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The names of the terrorists have no business being mentioned prominently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 20:18, June 30, 2007

First, sign your remarks. Second, justify your statement. Third, you're wrong. --Golbez 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not "mentioned prominently", four terrorist names are simply listed among names of the dead. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be mentioned at all, period. That they are mentioned at all and that you are actually trying to add them back, is wrong on so many levels. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They are mentioned because we have articles on them; that is how things work here. If you don't think they should be here, try getting their articles deleted. --Golbez 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make me feel any different on it (though I will try to get those articles deleted...doubt it will happen), but I removed the 4 names in question out of the "Victims of 9/11" "section" and into their own "section". Excuse while I go scald my mouse and take 28 hour shower in bleach. *feels dirty* *shudder* - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Our goal is, at least in part, to include information on notable or historically subjects, events, objects, and persons. You don't have to like these people. No one is asking you to like these people. We are, however, asking that you stay out of the way of building an encyclopedia. This section of this page isn't the cheer section where we talk about who we enjoy or don't. It's not the sum of human knowledge, nor of human opinion. It's an alphabetical listing of people, presumably with articles on Wikipedia, who died that day. That's all it is, and that's all it should be. As much as I can understand and sympathize with your strong emotional feelings on this subject, those feelings do lead me to question whether you can really be a neutral encyclopedian in this matter. If anything, perhaps the full section and/or category should be renamed to something more akin to "deaths," rather than "victims." The reader can make their own decisions regarding who is or isn't a victim, we shouldn't really be doing that for them. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I agree with ya. I let my opinions get in the way. My apologizes.

I did, as you can tell, switch the section around so it is victims under "victims" and bad guys under the bad guy section...so hopefully that will work for everyone.

Again, my apologizes for my opinions getting in the way, that is on me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Factoid: September 11, 2007 - First time the 911 date falls on a Tuesday since September 11, 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.152.19 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Patriot Day as a Holiday

This link to Patriot_Day was added and then removed, by me. While congress asked the President to declare every Sept. 11th "Patriot Day", it has not caught on as a National Holiday, as such. From the Patriot Day entry: "Despite the law's passage and Bush's proclamation, the effort to make September 11 a national holiday has been widely rejected by the American public, who view the effort as both an act of jingoism and an act of "handing the emotional victory over to the terrorists" This day of observance should not be confused with Patriot's Day, a holiday celebrated primarily in Massachusetts that commemorates the Battle of Lexington and Concord during the Revolutionary War. Wisconsin also celebrates Patriots' Day by closing its public schools." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notchcode (talk • contribs) .

Now withstanding everything you wrote, it has still been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, so it is therefore official. I fully agree with you that it is confusing to have the name "Patriot Day", because the name is already used by northwestern states for other purposes. --Asbl 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Alva Edison

Thomas Alva Edison's Birthday! Please add

He was born on February 11th, actually.

Other use note at top of page

Since "September 11" is so strongly connected in the public imagination with the 2001 terrorist attack, I've added that note to the top of the page. This should be helpful, since there seem to be quite a few pages linking to this article when they want to refer to the terrorist attacks (see What links here). --The Famous Movie Director 06:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved by --Cerejota 08:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) because of wrong placement at "September 11" section

I have moved the media shorthand notice into a separate section.

I think this notice being used in the intro paragraph fails the Wikipedia POV test of not being geo-centric (ie, for Chileans September 11 - Septiembre 11 - was a very significant date long before the attacks in the USA). Yet I also think a disambiguation effort might justify a separate section on media usage, although in all honesty the disambiguation tag on the top fulfills this task better, and I open discussion as to if this section should be removed altogether. I'll be watching for replies.

--Cerejota 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Is this document http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_fr.swf of any interest? Regards, --Powo 13:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

Message

A message was left for me that I had edited on the article page or this page. I have never done so. No idea how that happened. 81.131.77.243 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Holiday heading title

Most dates use ==Holidays and observances== for the heading title. This date has a ==Holiday== heading along with an ===Other observances=== subheading. Is there a reason for this, or should the section be consolidated to conform with other date pages? Novac 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Walker

Removed the Birth Entry for Paul Walker, as he was born on 9/12. Liqker 08:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Poltava

The Battle of Poltava article gives the date of the battle as June 28, 1709, not September 11. Either this page or the article itself is in error. Grandin 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

111?

The 111 is for a normal year and not a leap year, correct? Either way it is strange thinking that 9/11 is also the mark for 111 more days in a year. -24.92.41.95 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same, leap or not - after the leap day, every day is the same distance from the end of the year. --Golbez 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Entries with no heading

I have an impression that September 11 is idee fixe for Americans. Thousands people died at every day of year. I haven't however see any of them marked as "that day thousands people were gassed at Auschwitz" "that day thousands people died in massacres in Ruanda" "That day hundreds of people died from hunger (nobody cares for them, i think because they are not Americans)" . I am going to remove from deaths that remark unless someone will provide me rationale for this - after all there is already reference to terrorist attack at events, and that should suffice. Or i will start to add in every day in deaths sentences like "that day thousands people died there and schmere". szopen

Read Nine-eleven - it may take on a more symbolic meaning in the American mind, and those in the emergency services.kiwiinapanic 01:01 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Whilst the article is not the place for comments like "September 11 will forever be a black date" and that sort of stuff, it is worth recording the fact that since the attacks the date has become a commonly understood shorthand (particularly in the media) for the attacks themselves. I have added it, in hopefully NPOV way, simply as a definition of current usage. --Hrothgar 13:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I find the presence of the entry Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the Deaths section somewhat troubling, as it gives the victims an elevated status compared to other non-famous deaths. -- Dissident 02:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Heh. There are plenty of non-famous people in Wikipedia ;-) Anyway, I think I was the one that added the link a while back. Previously, the only person listed for that date (at least for several months before I edited the page) was Barbara K. Olson. There were lots of fairly important people on the planes and in the buildings, and I didn't think it was appropriate to elevate just one above all the rest, ergo the link to the casualties page. —Mulad 01:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

9/11 may have been a day of a huge terrorist attack, but not everyone who died on 9/11/2001 were killed due to the attacks. Are you sure you're not missing fatalities that occurred unrelated to the 9/11 attacks? Rickyrab 23:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is missing, feel free to add them. I don't think it's appropriate to elevate certain individuals within the group that was killed in the attacks, at least on this page. If someone important died elsewhere from choking on a ham sandwich or whatever, they can certainly get their own line above or below the casualties list link. —Mulad 01:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

I've heard (and this may be rumor) that the birthday of one of the Columbine shooters is September 11th... Don't know which one, or if they are worthy of mention anyway. DryGrain 08:44, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That appears to be true. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold says that Klebold was born on the 11th in 1981. —Mulad 01:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

http://www.911closeup.com/

I think you should go there. Read the section on passenger flight lists, among the other things covered there.

The_Fly 02:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're not peddling in conspiracy theories here. TPK 02:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Picture?

Why is there a picture for the 2001 Sep 11 event? I do not recall seeing a photo on any other date page. I propose that this be removed or at least relocated to the page on the topic (i.e. Sep 11, 2001 attacks). Thoughts? Hu Gadarn 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a picture at November 22 and one other page (as I recall) as well. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but do these pictures serve value on such (date) pages? Particularly as large as the Sep.11 one? I am not downplaying the significance of the event or the visual power of the picture, but isn't that what the article pages are for? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks

I'm really hesitant about bringing this up once more, so I apologize in advance if this suggestion offends anyone...but wouldn't it make sense to replace the individual victim names with a single pointer to Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks? There are only a dozen individual entries at the moment, but if the precedent is that the victims of 9/11 should be listed individually, dozens or hundreds of entries on this page will become untenable. (Again, please take no offense at this suggestion; it's in the interests of practicality, not to diminish any of these individuals). -- Jim Douglas 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And a logical extension of this question, does it make sense to list the names of the 1994 Rwanda massacre (up to 1,000,000 dead), the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Bosniak males in Srebrenica, or the up to 80,000 dead in the Darfur Crises? Perhaps, perhaps not. I think the important thing is consistency. Hu Gadarn 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone want to weigh in on this? I see the list of 2001 dead growing again. I would like to remove this and leave the redirect to the linked page (2001 deaths). Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the problem is, why does this particular date need to be pruned? --Golbez 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I got locked for vandalism for trying to remove the names of all the victims of the attacks and replaced it with the single link.....

• I agree with this person, there's no need to list these certain victims of the terrorist attack seperately from the list as if they are somehow "better" victims of the 9/11 attacks. I'm removing the seperated list of people from under the category link and will let the link do the talking. If anyone has a problem with this, I guess feel free to replace it, but please give your rationale here on the talk page first. I don't mean this as a disrespect to any people previously listed under the link, but I feel that it's better to send readers to a comprehensive listing of all deaths. In long lists of albums in discography sections of bands, you don't list a couple albums then link to all the rest, it's just one link to the discography, which is a seperate article, so that's my precedent for doing this. Gwright86 11:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

you could and have said that.

And it's still true. Your judgment is suspect.

read carefully: No other date page has an image, and it is unfair to other events to feature one. This page is about the date sept 11, not the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Read carefully:

• January 28
• November 22

Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head. Perhaps you ought to take your own advice about "reading carefully" and stop pushing your particular heavy barrow. If you're going to do the know-it-all snob act, it helps to actually know something. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Free speech?

Um, did anyone notice how somebody added "Free Speech" as one of the deaths? --Michael58.169.209.150 07:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:SOCK, no comment. --SockingIt 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about vandalism, a joke, silent protest? - Redmess (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1541: destruction of Santiago, Chile?

No other pages mention that, neither the Santiago, Chile page or Michimalonco, who supposedly did the destroying. In fact, the city was founded that year. What was the source for this one? --AW 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prescript

Is the World Trade Center prescript at the start of the article really necessary? It's just another event, and doesn't really have much relevance to non-Statesians. --84.64.74.71 13:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement is true only for the sort whose sole source of outside information is the News of the World. --CalendarWatcher 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The United States is not the centre of the world. --84.68.123.51 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I too find it odd (the inclusion of the Sept. 11, 2001 ref at the page start). I recognize that it has an important role for many, including many outside the USA. However, its inclusion is value-ladden, i.e. that this event is more important than any other in the events section. That's why I don't believe it warrants a special prescript at the start of the page. My $0.02. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the idea that the reference to the World Trade Center at the beginning is because it's more important than any of the following events or that the US takes precedence over any other country in the world--but the simple fact that the event itself is reffered to as 9/11, 9-11, or September 11th--which (although I could be wrong) no other event on this day happens to be known as (at least not to the extent as the WTC attacks), and because of that has a very good reason to be at the top of the page, as someone trying to look up that actual event may end up here. If there is another event (like the 1973 Chilean coup d'état) that shares it's most common or well-known name with the date, it's welcome to also be put at the top of the page. But you can't ignore the fact that the 9-11 attacks are most widely known as just that, and the chances of someone ending up on this page looking for information on the attacks are pretty high.

Although I won't hide the fact that I'm an American and a New Yorker (got a feeling if I didn't state that myself right away, my statement might've been discredited by some when I was inevitably "outed" as a NYer), so my opinion can be taken as a little bias, but I think my arguements still stand nonetheless. Irish♣Pearl 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okinas and Jesus's birthday.

Golbez: Er, the "use English" requirement generally doesn't need to go the talk page. Hawaii is quite simply the localization used in English, just as Tokyo is used rather than the more precise romanization of Tōkyō, and Art Deco is used rather than art décoratif. This is doubly true since the sentence currently refers to the _state_ of Hawaii, not the islands, and the state's name is unquestionably Hawaii.

As for the Jesus thing... it is mildly interesting, but not really connected to September 11th. How many scholars have proposed specific dates for various events in Jesus's life? Thousands. We could probably fill every date on the calendar with one scholar proposing something related to Jesus happened then. Bishop Ussher dating the world is notable; this Mr. Martin does not appear to be a particularly notable one. SnowFire 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, check http://www.hawaii.gov/portal/ - a .gov site which uses okinas. So perhaps you should start any crusade on Hawaii, not here. As for the others, he has an article, doesn't he? Do many of the 'thousands' others? I can yield on this one, though, since you're right, it's just one possible date out of probably 366, all of which probably have theories attached. But, I think the okina thing is much larger than this article. --Golbez 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm. I completely agree that that issue is larger than this article. There is no need to "start the crusade," however; I did look at Hawaii beforehand to make certain that I wasn't insane, and you'll note that they do not use the okina there (well, aside from discussing the name and mentioning the title in Hawaiian). So I believe that to be preferred Wikipedia style. As for the government site... interesting. This is a bit of a change. That said, if you look deeper into the website, you'll see that they're inconsistent- the Hawaii State Ethics Commission and the Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, but the Hawa`i Revised Statutes. And even if the state government did self-identify as Hawai`i completely, I'm quite certain that the official name nationally is still with no okina. Here's the Act of Statehood. SnowFire 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lindbergh's Des Moines Speech

Why did Golbez revert "* 1941 - Charles Lindberg's Des Moines Speech accusing the British, Jews and FDR's administration of pressing for war with Germany."? Jim Bowery 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes the speech so important that it should be included in a short list of the most important events in world history? Did it change history? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Beatrice Cenci

She was accused of patricide, not fratricide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaons (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) According to her Wiki page, she died on August 22, not September 11.Esaons 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Birthdate

There was a verse in Matthew concerning the positioning of the stars in the sky...especially Virgo(though not referred by name) "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon at her feet, pained to be delivered" On 1 Tishiri (Jewish Calendar) or September 11, 3BC that exact thing happened in astronomy...the elipticall orbit of Virgo (depicted as a virgin female) was having the sun positioned over her 'head' and the moon positioned over her 'feet' this was probably the time where Jesus was born. But that is not in the gospel of Matthew but in the Book of Revelation.

Suggestion: Add - Chilean Constitution Approved

New Chilean Constitution, replacing the suspended one of 1925, was approved by referendum on September 11, 1980.
Ref: http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_2libertyChile.htm

(I can't edit the main page so I am suggesting that this event is added!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.140.201 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Zenta 1697

This is a far more important date than many presented - it forever ended the Turkish threat against Europe. I wanna add it in, so please let me know if any disagree or if you decide on which one to remove in place? Tourskin (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article about that specific event? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Different picture needed

The 2008 September 11 POTD/featured picture is going to be 9/11 related [1] so the On This Day picture shouldn't be about the same topic, dreadful as it was. How about the World Wildlife Fund logo, as that is something hopeful rather than doom and gloom related, like coups and wars etc? 86.147.162.92 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Also, I seem to remember this OTD photo was used for OTD last year. 9/11 shouldn't have the monopoly, every year. Other momentous events have happened that should be highlighted. This one is still so close to us but we need perspective too. 86.147.162.92 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)