Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject September 11, 2001: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks is nominated for deletion
Line 157: Line 157:
== TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}]] ==
== TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}]] ==
[[File:Nuvola_apps_important.svg|30px]][[Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
[[File:Nuvola_apps_important.svg|30px]][[Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:{{ucfirst:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Attributing and contextualizing minority 9/11 theories ==

Review of [[Talk:September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories]] would be appreciated. The debate here is not about whether the existence of non-mainstream "conspiracy" theories should be mentioned at all, but rather about whether they should be put in context. By "context," I mean the fact that "conspiracy" approaches have been both rejected ''and'' accepted by notable entities. In other words, I mean that which is being removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=272823667&oldid=272811346 here] and restored [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=272828025&oldid=272824895 here]. My position is that the National Institute of Standards and Technology and "the community of civil engineers" (both of which have opposed non-mainstream theories) and a third of the American public (which supports these theories), as reported by ''Time'' magazine (which even goes so far as to ''call'' them "mainstream," but not so far as to voice its own support of them) are all notable enough to mention. My position is that this balance is fully in accord with the spirit of [[WP:NPOV]], and especially in accord with its [[WP:DUE]] section, which states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and therefore, as far as I can tell, encourages the ''attribution'' of the minority perspective, regardless of how true or false that perspective may ultimately turn out to be. Indeed, in this debate I have cited [[WP:V]], which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Those who oppose the contextualization of these theories have also pointed to [[WP:DUE]], but in a way that I view to be mistaken--namely, by suggesting that reliable sources should ''back'' a theory, while [[WP:DUE]] emphasizes the extent to which theories are ''held'', regardless of their veracity, rather than "backed" by any particular types of evidence. Thanks, [[User:Cosmic Latte|Cosmic Latte]] ([[User talk:Cosmic Latte|talk]]) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:41, 24 February 2009

RFC on September 11, 2001 attacks

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#RFC on page title and comma - We need outside opinions on what the appropriate grammar and application of the manual of style is here in this situation. Should the page title and the article start out with "September 11, 2001 attacks" (no comma) or "September 11, 2001, attacks"? A third option is to rename the page to something like "September 11 attacks". We would appreciate comments on the article talk page. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General renaming of relevant articles following the move of 9/11 attacks

Since September 11, 2001 attacks has been moved to September 11 attacks, doesn't this mean that articles containing the title should follow suit? The arguments for the main article's move apply to them as well, and we might as well do the whole job in one go. The articles I have found so far (through {{Sept11}}) are:

There is also the category (Category:September 11, 2001 attacks) and 10 out of its 13 sub-categories (and a sub-category of one of them), as well as the name of this WikiProject itself.

Perhaps someone should have mentioned all this while discussing the initial move. I have only just realised the volume of the work that needs to be done if we are to have consistency. Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this. Can't see any reason not to. Also, I think you over estimate the work needed to do this: with the mother article, the new name was a redirect so a deletion then a move had to occur. However, with most of those above, the new name doesn't exist. I reckon I'll go through and move some if I can. Deamon138 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could have expressed myself better. It's the moving plus the consensus for it that concerns me. Can we consider the initial consensus applying on all these articles? Or even on the categories?
And, in the end, the WikiProject itself might have to move. That's its members' decision, of course, but more consistency can't hurt. Waltham, The Duke of 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving these articles and the WikiProject is all okay. I say the consensus comes with moving the main article. --Aude (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus for moving the mother article can be applied here. I know for a fact that the people at CfD like to keep category names inline with main article names if possible. I can't see any argument against this. Besides, if anyone disagrees, then so be it. But I think being bold is fair. Deamon138 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved most of the above, but there are still a few things I reckon we should discuss:

Should we move Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, or keep if it's the official name?

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks needs to be unprotected so it can be moved.

Category:September 11, 2001 attacks and its subcategories need to be moved, but I don't know how.

This Wikiproject could be moved. One of its members supports it, and there is the original support for renaming the mother article, but the question is: should consensus for moving the project be from the community overall, or just the project's members? If it should be just the permission of its members, then we should ask the other three.

I also have a proposal for the other ones I haven't done. That is, these ones:

  1. September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services
  2. September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture
  3. September 11, 2001 attacks timeline beyond October
  4. September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for October
  5. September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September
  6. September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks All five here done (see above)

Aside from removing the 2001 and comma for each, and fixing the pluralization on the first one, I think we should get these to fit in line with the other ones I've moved i.e. have them all end in "September 11 attacks". For example, I think we should move September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September to something like September timeline for the September 11 attacks. What do people think of this idea, and the other points of discussion above? Deamon138 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving the pages. For the Joint Inquiry article, let's keep the current title since that's an official name. For the timeline and other articles listed, what you suggest sounds good. Also, the WikiProject can be moved. This is a new wikiproject, and it's really no big deal. For the category, a bot would need to do that. What needs to happen is to recatgorize all the articles into new categories. Then, once the old categories are empty, they can be deleted. For the reactions article, I could move it. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have moved that Reactions one, so thanks for doing that. I did a Google, and it does look like the Joint Inquiry one is its official name, so that's fine if we keep it there (I doubt that there's a standout common name for this one, so official is ok). Anyway, where do we get ourselves a bot? Deamon138 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOTREQ is the place to ask. --Aude (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I reckon we should decide how we want to do the ones remaining from that list first, and then request a bot afterwards.
Also, I did another google here. That looks to be all the pages with "September 11, 2001" in the title on Wikipedia, that Google knows about. I don't know if we've done all of them apart from those I mentioned above or not. That search needs to be sifted through. Deamon138 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much preference on renaming the remaining articles. Your suggestion is good with me. It will take Google some time to catch up with all the page moves. So, it's not worth looking there now to find remaining pages to rename. I think we got most, if not all. --Aude (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Not quite all. I went through that Google, and found some more that need to be moved which I shall do (I compared with the list we had moved to check):

They were missed because either they didn't have a template on them, or they had the "Sep11" template rather than the "Sept11" more common template. Incidentally, the "Sep11" template has been put up for deletion. I think I'll add the other template to those articles while I move them too. Deamon138 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aude, since you're an admin, can you delete Songs about the September 11 attacks (which is currently a redirect), so that Songs about the September 11, 2001 attacks can be moved there please? Thanks in advance. :D Deamon138 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved that page over the redirect. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Deamon138 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've all the articles have been done now I reckon (unless there's some others sneaking about somewhere, though I doubt it). That is sufficiently bold enough for me, I'll leave everything else for now. I hope people like the new page names for those 5/6 above that I changed the word order on. Those are the best names I can come up with, but if someone doesn't like them, then so be it. Let's hope they're ok! :) Deamon138 (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your quick and efficient response. I have commented on {{Sep11}}'s deletion and have updated the links in {{Sept11}} to point to the right articles (so that an article's title will appear bold and black when the box is in that article). I'd also like to say that I prefer the new names of the timelines and some other articles; these moves have been an opportunity to do some improvement in the naming area.
As far as the categories are concerned, I propose listing them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion; I believe that the re-categorisations of the articles are taken care of if the moves are approved, something that should happen without any problems. Waltham, The Duke of 12:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the proposal for all these categories to be renamed at [1]. Deamon138 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working on the page moves. It's a huge help. I left comments regarding the category renaming. --Aude (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no problem. I comment too much on talk pages, so I felt I ought to do some manual work for a change! :-) Deamon138 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Version 0.7 selections

I saw notices left for other WikiProjects about Wikipedia Version 0.7 selections, but since this project is new and not many articles are tagged yet, we didn't get a notice. A bot selected the articles, with the list here [2]. This is an opportunity for general cleanup and addressing weaknesses. The Version 0.7 team wants good revisions selected by October 20. We can also make suggestions. --Aude (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles

Here are the selections that fall within this project, along with issues. --Aude (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worked on the article, it's better, though still needs more references. Also, the 1993 bombing section is still a mess, and the subarticle needs work. Something more is also needed on the collapse of the WTC, with that subarticle also in need of much improvement. Once both subarticles are brought up to acceptable standards (next priorities), then it will be much easier to go back to the main WTC article and follow summary style. --Aude (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osama bin Laden - The "Criminal charges and attempted extradition" section reads like a timeline, other sections need cleanup and general improvement
  • Al-Qaeda - in decent shape, but the "Refuge in Afghanistan" section needs cleanup. The "Regional activities" section used to be a mess, with material since put into subarticles, so it's better now. But, the section needs more substance now in summary style.
  • Template:FA United Airlines Flight 93 - featured article, no issues
  • The Pentagon - article is in terrible shape, I have not done much at all with it yet. The "Facts and figures" section needs to go, and the article also has the dreaded "popular culture" section.
  • Freedom Tower - this gets a large number of page views, so it's important. Fortunately, the article appears in good shape.
  • Template:GAicon Port Authority of New York and New Jersey - good article, still seems okay.
  • Template:FA American Airlines Flight 11 - featured article, no issues
  • Template:FA American Airlines Flight 77 - featured article, no issues
  • War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) - I have not touched this one. Although there is a substantial amount of useful information, the article needs much work to bring up to standards. I can see the task of adding sources and cleanup being a very time-consuming. Large portions of the article do not have inline citations. The article also has a lengthy "public opinion" section which is merely a list. The "Human rights abuses" section has been tagged with neutrality issues since December 2007. I also don't think the article is very up-to-date with more recent events in Afghanistan.
  • Mohamed Atta - in good shape
  • Template:FA Ziad Jarrah - this is a featured article, though it passed FAC a few years ago when the criteria were not as stringent. The article did pass a featured article review in September 2007, so it's still in pretty good shape, but at some point should be brought up to current featured article standards.
  • Template:FA 7 World Trade Center - featured article
  • 1993 World Trade Center bombing - this needs quite a bit of work, though needs to draw on different sources including The New Jackals by Simon Reeve and Two Seconds Under the World by Jim Dwyer. Thus, I see a time commitment involved.
  • Sayyid Qutb - this article falls within scope of the project. Qutb was an important influence for Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The article is mostly good shape, though it has an "Original research" maintenance tag in one section.
  • Collapse of the World Trade Center - this has long been subject to problems. Needs a bit of work to bring up to standards, and should be done together with the main World Trade Center article, so summary style is followed.

Both these have lesser importance and quality, etc. compared to the general 9/11 conspiracy theories article and United Airlines Flight 175, thus are recommended for removal from the selection list:

  • World Trade Center (film) - Surely, there are standards on Wikipedia for film articles, but I have not worked on any film-related articles and don't know how the article should be. I do see there are only 8 references.
  • Loose Change (film) - this got selected

I suggest taking out Loose Change, as well as World Trade Center (film) which is start-class, and including both these among the selections. --Aude (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories and United Airlines Flight 175 have been added to the selection list. A decision on the others has not been made yet. --Aude (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'll see what I can do with World Trade Center and The Pentagon. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have book sources, especially for the WTC, so I should be able to get the article improved. I also have some sources for the Pentagon, but it's a big task that I really can't do right now, other than maybe purging the "facts & figures". --Aude (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing and contextualizing minority 9/11 theories

Review of Talk:September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories would be appreciated. The debate here is not about whether the existence of non-mainstream "conspiracy" theories should be mentioned at all, but rather about whether they should be put in context. By "context," I mean the fact that "conspiracy" approaches have been both rejected and accepted by notable entities. In other words, I mean that which is being removed here and restored here. My position is that the National Institute of Standards and Technology and "the community of civil engineers" (both of which have opposed non-mainstream theories) and a third of the American public (which supports these theories), as reported by Time magazine (which even goes so far as to call them "mainstream," but not so far as to voice its own support of them) are all notable enough to mention. My position is that this balance is fully in accord with the spirit of WP:NPOV, and especially in accord with its WP:DUE section, which states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and therefore, as far as I can tell, encourages the attribution of the minority perspective, regardless of how true or false that perspective may ultimately turn out to be. Indeed, in this debate I have cited WP:V, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Those who oppose the contextualization of these theories have also pointed to WP:DUE, but in a way that I view to be mistaken--namely, by suggesting that reliable sources should back a theory, while WP:DUE emphasizes the extent to which theories are held, regardless of their veracity, rather than "backed" by any particular types of evidence. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_September_11,_2001&oldid=272861258"