Talk:September 11 attacks

Day of the week

Shouldn't the article mention what day of the week (a Tuesday) the attacks occurred? I came here looking to refresh my memory, but ended up having to ask Google instead. 46.167.245.132 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Added by User:Invertzoo here. - Aoidh (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2016

In all instances where the article states the death toll as "2996" please correct to "2977 victims, not including the 19 terrorists responsible for the attacks"

The repetition of the 2996 figure is mistakenly causing people to memorialize the terrorists responsible for the attacks along with their victims.

76.190.138.159 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing text

I have commented out a confusing portion of the following text:

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines)—all of which departed from airports on the northeastern United States bound for California—were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, losing one of their passports in the World Trade Center area.

First of all, the subject of the sentence is "four passenger airliners", so literally the sentence claims that four passenger airliners lost one of their passports.

But even if we skip over that, and assume that the reader can figure out that one of the hijackers lost his passport, it's still confusing. The time context is the hijacking. How did he lose his passport from the hijacked plane?

Presumably he lost it sometime before the hijacking, right? But that isn't at all clear from the sentence. It needs to be explained better, and probably somewhere else. The question of the passport is not directly relevant to the hijacking, so it should be brought up somewhere else, presumably where the investigation of the hijacking is discussed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that detail belongs in the lede -- it's confusingly out of place, and too small a detail for the beginning of the article (which should begin with the broadest description of the overall events and then gradually funnel into details). Either remove it or put it in the 'investigation' section. I presume what it means is one of the hijackers' passports was thrown free during the impacts. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought of that but I assumed that couldn't be it, because (I thought) it would have been destroyed. I figured one of the perps must have lost it when they were doing preliminary field work. But that doesn't make a lot of sense either, because it's hard to see why you would need reconnaissance from the ground.

So maybe you're right and an identifiable fragment of the fragment actually survived the wreckage to be found. But then I think that needs to be clearly explained, and as you say, put later in the article where it's more in context. --Trovatore (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Aha, it's in the article on Satam_al-Suqami. Maybe it should stay there? I'm going to go ahead and remove it here (thank you for commenting it out in the meantime). If anyone can find an elegant place for it instead of the lede, please go ahead. Antandrus (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How many police officers died?

This article says 72, while Casualties of the September 11 attacks lists 71. Kiwifist (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties actually says "...71 law enforcement officers who died in the World Trade Center and on the ground in New York City,[6] one law enforcement officer who died when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania,..." which equals 72. Rmhermen (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

i think that the word used in this article "Islamic Terrorism" sound not right for the Muslim community... like other terrorism communities,Taliban and some other tropes used the name of Islam for their own sake... we should not blame whole religion for such activities, carried out by single community... Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.141.173 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No-one has blamed the whole Islamic community, but nonetheless it is true that the September 11 attacks were carried out by Islamic Terrorist groups. Wikipedia is about facts and does not blame the whole Islamic community for the attacks. Please also remember to use correct English and sign your contributions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Europhysics News

Europhysics News is a journal of European Physical Society which membership include national physical societies of 42 countries.

Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences.

How one WP musician can falsify thesis in referencing paper reviewed by multitude of piers with credentials, published in the Europhysics News and accepted by editorial board ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No. EPN states that it was not reviewed [2] and "It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views." It therefore fails Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy which demands editorial review. They've taken steps to keep this from happening again. In other words, it's a striking instance of a failure of editorial oversight and an example of remarkable naiveté on the part of EPN. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not endorse do not mean it was not viewed before publication by peers in EPN editorial. To physical science endorsement do no apply. And the usual situation throught history is that most endorsed theory is falsified initially (usually) by single person. This is typical situation through all history of science: falsified theories are replaced by another theories. Beside I afraid the above quote was cited from source not yet in open circulation. From my knowledge horizon seem to be too trivial to request to peer review a theory based on the Copernicus postulate further developed by Newton? Interesting is that Copernicus excerpted ancient conspiracy theory and refers to it clearly in his work. Above considered wp-article cite cite 359 sources, should we apply similar rejective measures to thy theses if were independently peer-reviewed if adhering to the strict regiments of scientific scrutiny and if are falsifiable? Also note Europhisics News sentence: "Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments." After publication the article was peer reviewed additionally in the sense that it postulates were presented by professional society to multiple national scientific societies (thousands of peers) and nobody yet published a paper falsifying a thesis. In scientific circles such situation have a specific meaning. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)