Talk:September 11 attacks

9/11

Is there a reason this page isn't titled 9/11? It's by far the most commonly used name, and it already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have thought the current title is quite unusual for a while now. Per WP:COMMONNAME I would support moving the page to either "9/11" or "9/11 attacks". --Philpill691 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

9/11 is only common in the USA. they are universally referred to as the 'September 11th attacks' outside of there, largely due to the date format 9/11 meaning 9th of November in most countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.105 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"The" NIST

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is commonly referred to as "NIST", without any preceding article. The current text of the "September 11 attacks" Wikipedia entry refers to it as "the NIST" on at least one occasion. For supporting material, refer to basically any NIST website to see the typical usage. 68.48.11.187 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this edit[2] address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, but the paragraph immediately preceding the edit also starts with the full name of the institute. There's no need to use the full name twice. I suggest that the proper change is just to eliminate "The" preceding "NIST" in the second mention. Thanks for the quick response.68.48.11.187 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about now?[3] Does this address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You've just restored the original, incorrect text. We're clearly talking past each other. Here's what I suggest: "The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigated the collapses of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC. The investigations examined why the buildings collapsed and what fire protection measures were in place, and evaluated how fire protection systems might be improved in future construction.[270] The investigation into the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC was concluded in October 2005 and that of 7 WTC was completed in August 2008. [paragraph break] NIST found that the fireproofing..." You simply can't make a reference to "the NIST". It's just "NIST"-- no preceding article. Does this make sense?68.48.11.187 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be  Already done. I see no mentions of "the NIST" in this article now. If I've missed something, please reopen the request and be specific about where you're now seeing it. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 05:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2013

Please change (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11[nb 1]) to (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, S11 or 9/11[nb 1])

Sahha (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I wasn't aware of this term, but found it used in online fora and blogs. —rybec 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that...it's not a term that is used with any frequency and I've never heard this event being referred to with that abbreviation. Use in fora and blogs is not noteworthy.--MONGO 11:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MONGO's removal. This is not noteworthy for September 11 attacks. You saved me an edit! Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed it. What is the difference between the first example and the proposal version? They look identical in this section. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignore last remark. I have just spotted what is difficult for the eyes to pick out quickly. This is about S11 and I too admit not to know that term to refer to the attacks. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are links to some news stories using the term:

1. ABC
2. Sydney Morning Herald
3. Sydney Morning Herald
4. Counterpunch
5. The Age
6. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/prosecutors-seek-death-for-s11-plotter/2006/03/07/1141493636929.html
7. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/15/1063478118687.html
8. Asia Pulse News
9. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/28/1064687670533.html
10. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734166249.html
11. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962936154.html
12. http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/21519

—rybec 03:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's solely an Australian term; any sign of use anywhere else? Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to the term but yes it does need wider coverage. Asia Pulse looks interesting here but it is a dead link. The Big Hoof! (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request "Destination of UA93"

The page currently reads: "The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at the United States Capitol[2] in Washington" - the evidence is linked to a documentary. I see no evidence that the hijackers of UA93 have provided written or verbal evidence that the target was the Capitol Building. Surely this is just speculation and should be described as such.

There is already extensive discussion of the target selection in the United Airlines Flight 93 article. Perhaps this page could be altered to include the slight uncertainty over White House or Capitol. Rmhermen (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed to address this, but I'm open to other wording. In general, shorter rather than longer, with the detail on Flight 93. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial sentence

For the sake of NPOV, shouldn't the initial sentence refer to al-Qaeda as an "Islamist" terrorist group or "Salafi" (or "Wahhabi") terrorist group? They have a very distinct ideology and belief system which is quite different from the mainline Sunni denominations, to the extent that Al-Azhar University considers the Salafi/Wahhabi faction to be a hopelessly evil cultic offshoot of mainline Sunnism. Considering the recent shakeup in Egypt which ousted the Salafist Muslim Brotherhood from power, I would advise we use much more specific descriptors with groups like al-Qaeda that are universally rejected and condemned by the vast majority of the world's billion+ Muslim population, and of course for the sake of maintaining a very strong focus on NPOV, which has generally been held up in this article over the years. Thoughts? Laval (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use the title of the linked article? If a change is called for, that's where it should be changed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unlock the article

History of this talk page is filled with thoughts of long-term editors and their respective puppets. This history is preserved and available for evaluation. At this point in time it's absolutely clear that we have group of editors who have gamed the system. Since its inception, this group has done nothing but turned away numerous editors, often in most uncivil manner - they've conspired to build false sense of consensus. Evidence of revision is here, it's open to the public.

Unlock the article. OTEx (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we are unable to comply with your demands at this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly an effort to improve the article. Of course, it's pretty darn hard to improve perpetually locked propaganda that few may edit. Yes? OTEx (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not going to be unlocked anytime soon, so unless you have specific suggestions for improving the article, there's not much else to say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC1

As we delve the meaning of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Gaming the system, I'd like to see Template:Advert and Template:POV placed above the article. OTEx (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the pov tag for you. You'll have to explain what advertising is bothering you before I'm willing to add the advert tag. --Onorem (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Let's wait for a while, to see if there's will to dispute the fact that… strong minded editors took this page as their own playground. OTEx (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments so far are not going to keep that tag there. You need to make specific points, and soon, if you want it to stay there while a discussion can take place. Just saying OWN and GAME isn't good enough. What, exactly, do you think needs to be addressed? --Onorem (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. It's not appropriate when all that's been done on this page is to indulge in vague handwaving, soapboxing and innuendo about editors who have worked on the content. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is about group of editors who are gaming the system, if you object such notion; feel free to explain the history. OTEx (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Acroterion comments and action. I see no reason for the POV tag. All we have had is vague comments and soapboxing. No-one is using the article for their own "playground". The article is for confirmed fact and sources, not for conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is well written piece of propaganda. OTEx (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously focused on the group of editors that turned this place in desolate wasteland. Hopefully, we understand that this is serious allegation. Should we revise each sound call for improvement of this article that was made one time to many just to be denied by this group? And on grounds of what? Article ownership? Wikipedia's failure? Intrusive nature of the governments? We have 59 pages of people who question 9/11 and not a word about people who question 9/11 in the article. Makes one wonder if there's any sanity and decency in vigilance…

So, instead of addressing such question as why we don't have section about conspiracy theories or peculiar fall of #7, we should rather address the group of editors who are enforcing their viewpoint while exploiting the system. Dudes telling people to piss off is on far side of consensus. It's a core issue, rather transparent even without name-calling. Reinstate the tag, please. OTEx (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an entire article on conspiracy theories, and the collapse of WTC 7 is addressed in the WTC 7 article. There is a general consensus that the article is too long already, and that for the most part conspiracy theories represent undue weight in the article. I suggest that you focus on content, rather than being "focused on the group of editors that have turned this place into a desolate wasteland." Tags aren't meant to be used to express vague gripes or for a single editor to dispute painfully-wrought consensus. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Better to remain focused on group of editors that turned away hundreds of contributors while painfully imposing consensus, as recorded in history. OTEx (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Big yawn....troll elsewhere.--MONGO 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Like an itch you can't scratch, eh Mongo? You were cautioned not to spew gibberish across the talkpage, once. Yes? Either way, I'll take you as fine representative of the group that's gaming the system. How many editors you've banned for stating their opinions? You have poor record, Mongo. I don't think you should be entangled with this article at all. OTEx (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)