Talk:September 11 attacks

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

change the linkless "passenger revolt" text to a link to the passenger revolt section of the "united airlines flight 93" article Loganp23 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (at least not in this way) - wiki links on phrases should be targeted to articles about those concepts, so linking that to an article about "passenger revolts" would be good there, but linking to a section of an article for a specific instance of a passenger revolt isn't our normal convention. This could be reworded, and link to the section, but it should be clear to the reader following that link where it may take them. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we add to the sentence in the "casualties" section to make: Casualties in the South Tower were significantly reduced because some occupants decided to leave the building as soon as the North Tower was struck, and because Rick Rescorla, head of security at Morgan Stanley, defied an order to remain in place and evacuated almost all of the company's 2,700 employees in the South Tower to safety after Flight 11 had struck the North Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" column under "Aftermaths" section

As you may know, "Reactions" sectors or columns, and especially their list format and flags, are despised by many editors as unencyclopedic quotefarms sourced to primary sources such as Twitter. Also, Every major Office holder and politician have mourned the death. Thus, these "Reactions" should be trimmed from the "Aftermaths" section. 2401:4900:44C1:CA63:B62:3931:3073:5F34 (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you give example of what you object to?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

PSA:The IP copy-pasted this comment from another article's talk page as some form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS retaliation for a revert on said article. SpinningCeres (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

better map/image needed

Under "Attacks", the section on "Damage" refers to St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, but that is not shown on the image of the damage. It, and all other structures mentioned as damaged, should be included on the image of the damage and marked in the overlay. I found this: http://crimescenedb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/911-04-full.jpg but it is only a map and doesn't show the damage; it is, however, the only image I can find that includes all the structures that were damaged. Dismalscholar (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

I just feel like I needed to point out that in the beginning of the second paragraph, which reads "The first plane to hit its target was American Airlines Flight 11. It was flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 am.", the words highlighted in bold are a redirect, to an article of the tenants in the One World Trade Center, the current building which was opened in 2014. Based on the context of this sentence, I think this redirect should be removed, and instead replaced with a redirect to an article of the tenants in the previous 1 World Trade Center, the building opened in 1973 and destroyed in 2001. I just believe it makes the article more sensical. --Medalpager (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Quite correct, and I simply removed the link, as the original WTC is already linked. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

Hello. The death count says 2,996 people died that day, however I believe that there should also be a note below the death count saying people continue to die today from cancer and other sickness due to exposure while rescuing survivors. They sacrificed, they died, and should be remembered. 76.109.122.155 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also see WP:MEMORIAL. --Hemanthah (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a link at the beginning of the final paragraph of the lead of this article to another article, Casualties of the September 11 attacks. That article addresses the issue you raise in considerable detail. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately this is not a "Change X to Y" rather it is a request for a small footnote right below the official death count of 2,996 on the main information block. And yes while I am aware that there is a separate page describing casualties, the issue is that most other people do not know it exists, so when they google the attacks and see the death count in the right hand box, they should also be a part below it in parenthesis or asterisk or however you want to form it. As long as people who visit the September 11 attacks page, not the casualties of the September 11 attacks page, and see that more have died as a direct result of the attack after the initial 2,996 people, then that will allow the stories for those who are not currently represented on the figure to know how its long term impacts and not just immediate. They should not have to visit another page to find that information out. And if this is confusing to you then I am sorry I don't know how else to phrase it I just want to see the real story told completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.122.155 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"September 11, 2001" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect September 11, 2001 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#September 11, 2001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

World trade center

Attack 2003:E7:EF00:A203:C576:39DC:405:1673 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What is your comment about?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

remove the parts about Islamists since it paints a bad picture of Islam and it was also proven that Muslims were not the ones who caused 9/11 197.60.95.183 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: What? Maybe read Al-Qaeda Cannolis (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

9/11 memorial pool

The 9/11 memorial pool should not be shown in the Infobox as the photos there are about events that took place on the day of September 11 2001. --Aaron106 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2022 - FBI interrogations of Abu Jandal

Hi, on September 17 2001, the FBI was able to confirm the identity of eight of the hijackers during interrogations with bin Laden’s former chief bodyguard, who was the time jailed in a Yemeni prison (the FBI confirmed the names of all hijackers well before, but it's one thing to confirm the names and quite another thing to confirm their al Qaeda membership). From my point of view, I would suggest to add this to the article in the section "5.1 FBI" probably before the sentence On September 27, 2001, they released photos of all 19 hijackers.... I would suggest the following text (but feel free to polish it, I am not a native English speaker anyway). Thanks!

Abu Jandal, who served as bin Laden’s chief bodyguard for years, confirmed the identity of eight hijackers during interrogations with the FBI on September 17. He had been jailed in a Yemeni prison since 2000.
Jo1971 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Blue Lock

Hello, my question with the article is regarding why September 11 is still an extended confirmed protected article and if it will ever return to the protection status it once was? From my research the actor responsible for the vandalism of the article and others has been blocked, yet the page remains protected. Thank you for your time.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the anniversary is past, I've dropped it back to autoconfirmed. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FictiousLibrarian (talk). 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Date is wrong: Maythefourth576 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Maythefourth

What date? Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 11, 2022

I just want to edit the article itself and some conspiracy theories, that some governments in the Middle East were participating in the attacks, although I have to become careful right, because if there's something wrong, it'll be your turn. Takeshi Ishii 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Connection between 9/11 and war on terror

How do we define “part of” in the phrase “part of the War on Terror”? Is 9/11 considered to be part of the War on Terror? Someone edited saying that because 9/11 led to the war and caused the war, and didn’t happen as a wartime battle or attack, that it’s not part of the war. But I can also see it as being part of the war because it was the precipitating event. I can see it either way, I’m neutral about it. Just wanna throw this out there and see what we’ve got. Opinions? Thoughts? Perspectives? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: I would strongly regard 9/11 as not being a part of the War on Terror. The 9/11 attacks were the inciting event that provoked the War on Terror to begin as a response, and were therefore not a part of the War themselves, especially since there was no military conflict during the attacks, meaning they cannot be viewed as a "battle". The infobox used to not include the War on Terror until May 2021, when it was added with no explanation. I would strongly support removing this from the infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks were the seminal event that provoked the US into launching the War on Terror. I wouldn't classify it as part of the War on Terror however the actions taken by the US government following the attack such as the Afghan War, establishing the Department of Homeland Security, and the PATRIOT Act would absolutely constitute being part of the War on Terror. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

The section Al-Qaeda contains a couple of errors and does not really use high-quality sources.

• The invasion prompted many Muslims across the Arab World to flock to Afghanistan. There, they organized and formed paramilitary groups, collectively called the Mujahideen. This is just plain wrong. The international volunteers are known as the “Afghan Arabs”, sometimes also the term “Arab Afghans” is used.

Hegghammer, Thomas (2020). The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 515. ISBN 978-0-521-76595-4.

In the Western literature the terms “Afghan Arabs” and “Arab Afghans” are used in roughly equal measure, but “Afghan Arabs” is more logical, because these men were Arabs who had been “Afghanized” by their involvement. Another reason to use “Afghan Arabs” for the foreign fighters is that there is actually an ethnic group in Afghanistan that identifies as Arab, claiming heritage from previous Arab migrations into Afghanistan.

• Osama bin Laden traveled to the central Asian country to volunteer... Afghanistan is commonly defined to be part of South Asia, not Central Asia.

• Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA. Except there's no evidence for this claim – this is what the academic literature is writing. There are of course authors claiming the CIA funded bin Laden, they just do not have any evidence.

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 42–43. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

It’s worth mentioning here that there is simply no evidence for the common myth that bin Laden and his Afghan Arabs were supported by the CIA financially. Nor is there any evidence that CIA officials at any level met with bin Laden or anyone in his circle. [...] No independent evidence of the CIA supporting al-Qaeda has emerged in the four decades since the end of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Hegghammer, Thomas (2020). The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-521-76595-4.

No proof exists of collaboration between the CIA and the Afghan Arabs. No record or interview to this effect has surfaced in the three decades since the Afghanistan war.

Chamberlin, Paul Thomas (2018). The Cold War’s Killing Fields. Rethinking the Long Peace. New York: Harper. p. 554. ISBN 978-0-06-236722-8.

To date, no researcher has produced documentation of direct links between Washington and bin Laden or, for that matter, Zarqawi. The weight of evidence suggests that the CIA and the future leaders of Al-Qaeda and ISIS were not in communication with one another during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.

• Osama bin Laden was not an exception and under the guidance of Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden and al-Qaeda became more extreme. Ayman al-Zawahiri was until 9/11 on the margins of bin Laden's world and he did not "guide" bin Laden.

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

There is no evidence that bin Laden’s key strategic decision to target the American “head of the snake” had any input from the Egyptian militant Ayman al-Zawahiri, despite later claims that Zawahiri was really the “brains” behind bin Laden. Indeed, bin Laden did not involve Zawahiri in the planning of his major operations, including the 9/11 attacks. The troika who founded and ran al-Qaeda was bin Laden at the apex and his two key military commanders, Abu Ubayda and Abu Hafs the Egyptian, both of whom had been on bin Laden’s payroll since the beginning of 1987. They were bin Laden’s men, not Zawahiri’s. Meanwhile, Zawahiri’s obsessive goal was overthrowing the “near enemy” Egyptian regime, a subject that bin Laden evinced very little interest in and that he rarely discussed in his public statements. Instead, the majority of bin Laden’s statements focused on what he described as American and Jewish aggression against Muslims, while his second-most-important topic was his criticism of the Saudi government, in particular for its alliance with the United States.

For more details see also p. 92.

Probably best to rewrite this section. --Jo1971 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jo1971, much of this content—specifically the inaccurate claims that the mujahideen were predominantly Arab and that bin Laden was directly supported by the CIA—was recently added on 4 April by FictiousLibrarian, a problematic editor known for pushing pro-Russian narratives on Wikipedia, using a relatively low-quality Social Justice (formerly Contemporary Marxism) article dated Fall 2001. Alas, I have access to the source on JSTOR (it's brief, totaling eight pages, including one page of citations) and it does not substantiate FictiousLibrarian's summary that "Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA." Instead, the Social Justice article states (accurately, as far as I know) that: "Osama bin Laden had been brought to Afghanistan by his friend Prince Turki, the head of Saudi intelligence. The young bin Laden—tall, handsome, devout, and rich—was the next best thing to the real Saudi prince that the ISI had long requested. In Afghanistan, bin Laden's tasks included building infrastructure, coordinating logistics for the mujahedeen, dishing out funds, and, later, fighting. As one of the leaders of the international volunteers, bin Laden kept track of the other recruits, registering their identities and contact information. From this roster, it is said, emerged al Qaeda." Assuming good faith, it is possible that FictiousLibrarian could have misread that (or similar passages) and thought that the author was stating (or perhaps implying) that "Bin Laden's group was one of many that received intelligence, and equipment from the CIA." However, in wiki-parlance I would have to say that the edit fails verification. Accordingly, I have restored the previous long-standing version of this article, while merging two sentences of relevant background information from Soviet–Afghan War. A full rewrite using the sources above could also be welcome, but keep in mind that our focus here is the September 11 attacks themselves—the "Background" section does not need to be massive or fully comprehensive. Finally, FictiousLibrarian's edit included an unsourced assertion that "Al-Qaeda during this time had also undertaken acts of terrorism including the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing," which I mention because our 1993 World Trade Center bombing article does not appear to support this attribution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, thank you. Your restoration removed the errors but in the meantime User:FictiousLibrarian reintroduced some errors again. I will undo the change. In my opinion, this section could be a little more detailed but that's also a matter of taste. --Jo1971 (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Needless to say, if FictiousLibrarian has a case to make for his edits then he should make it here (and also start leaving accurate edit summaries), rather than trying to force them through (albeit with several modifications) despite a lack of consensus, especially on a high-profile Good Article such as this. To be fair, though, he is not responsible for the "central Asian" description, which was added in September 2021 using this Cambridge University Press source (which does support the language, although of course other sources may disagree). Prior to last September, the long-standing version from at least July 2015, when the article was promoted to GA, did not include any geographical description of Afghanistan's location.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My fellow editors. I shall make my case. The origins of Al Qaeda are undisputed. The group emerged from Islamic militants that flooded into Afghanistan following the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1979. It is important to notice the years in which the conflict takes place 1979-1989 which place the conflict firmly in the Cold War. Cold War American policy was such that any and all groups that opposed either the Soviet Union, Soviet backed governments and groups, or groups preaching Marxism-Leninism were an existential threat to the United States. In step with these policies the United States government funneled weapons and aid to these groups. The Mujahideen fighters constitute the group fighting the Soviet Union directly and as such they received American equipment and aid. Although we cannot conclude definitively that al-Qaeda had links to the CIA, we can conclude that weapons funneled into Afghanistan ended up in the hand of al-Qaeda. It was American aid that helped the Mujahideen fighters resist the Soviets in a similar fashion to the Soviet aid given to the North Vietnamese against the United States. We also know that during the Reagan presidency (1981-1989) aid to anti-Soviet and anti-communist groups were heavily increased. The CIA and other agencies under Reagan funded fighters from Afghanistan to Nicaragua. al-Qaeda benefitted from US aid, indirectly. Nonetheless, the United States played a critical role in the Soviet defeat in the Afghanistan War. It would be in the years following that the Mujahideen fighters began to turn against the United States and launched terrorist attacks such as the 1993 WTC bombing, 1998 Embassy Bombings and the 2000 Bombing of the USS Cole. What I am saying is US Cold War policy played a role in the rise of al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups. By aiding them against the Soviets, the United States gave them the equipment and training necessary to wage Guerilla warfare against a superpower, however it would not be the Soviets these fighters opposed in the twenty-first century, it would be the United States. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:FictiousLibrarian, what I haven't really understood, are you proposing specific changes to the article and if yes, which ones? That the U.S. supported the Mujahideen as part of their policy of containment during the Cold War would be a point I would also add to the article. But I would prefer to use academic literature as a reference (there's plenty of it available). --Jo1971 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would be adding this section in the al-Qaeda section of the article. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything in FictiousLibrarian's comments above that is responsive to our concerns regarding his previous factually erroneous edits, or to his ongoing low-key edit war ([2], [3], [4], [5]) on the subject of the lede summary's description of al-Qaeda's plan. I hope this means that FictiousLibrarian intends to cease all such disruptive editing moving forward.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ayman al-Zawahiri is listed in the infobox together with bin Laden as perpetrator. Peter Bergen writes there's no evidence he had any role in planning 9/11 and I do not see a reference for this claim in the article. So I would suggest to remove his name from the infobox.

Bergen, Peter (2021). The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-9821-7052-3.

In fact, there is no evidence that Zawahiri had a role in the planning of any of al-Qaeda’s major anti-American attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and 9/11 itself.

--Jo1971 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

punctuation

Please add a comma after 8:14 a.m. and a period after attacks. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Done ✅ Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing comma

In the first paragraph of the article: "On the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001"

There should be a comma between Tuesday and September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5230:8880:98DF:4897:3398:D294 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

9/11

All about 9/11 174.252.130.30 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is, your point? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Body count

How many were actually killed in the attacks? This page's infobox claims 3,013 lives were lost but everywhere else seems to go with a figure of 2,996. 109.78.173.137 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

One is the number of victims, and the other is the number of victims + the attackers. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Still doesn't add up. The leading paragraph in this page states that there were 2,977 victims + 19 attackers, which only brings us to a total of 2,996. 109.78.173.137 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I think what may have happened is that 19 was added twice. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Reaction of Israel to attacks

It would be relevant to include a quote by the Prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, which is "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq". This is from a Haaretz article from 2008. Haaretz is a respected Israeli newspaper if you are not familiar with them. Aurela111 (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Why should we include it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2022

Item: 1
At: September 11 attacks#Other al-Qaeda members
Old: At the same time, another 17 al-Qaeda members were sentenced to penalties of between 6 and 11 years.
New: At the same time, another 17 al-Qaeda members were sentenced to penalties of between six and eleven years.
Per: MOS:NUM "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." and MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently."

Item: 2
At: September 11 attacks#The four crashes
Old: These fires burned for nearly 7 hours,
New: These fires burned for nearly seven hours,
Per: MOS:NUM "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

Item: 3
At: September 11 attacks#Casualties
Old: 70 were civilians and 55 were military personnel,
New: Seventy were civilians and 55 were military personnel,
Per: MOS:NUMNOTES "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure"

Item: 4
At: September 11 attacks#Casualties
Old: 107 people below the point of impact died.
New: One-hundred seven people below the point of impact died.
Per: MOS:NUMNOTES "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure"

Item: 5
At: September 11 attacks#Interfaith efforts
Old: the percentage of US congregations involved in interfaith
New: the percentage of U.S. congregations involved in interfaith
Per: Article consistency; MOS:US "either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article"

Item: 6
At: September 11 attacks#Alleged Saudi government role
Old: the Obama administration released a document compiled by US investigators
New: the Obama administration released a document compiled by U.S. investigators
Per: Article consistency; MOS:US "either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article"

Item: 7
At: September 11 attacks#Memorials
Old: Since then, the work of art, known in the US
New: Since then, the work of art, known in the U.S.
Per: Article consistency; MOS:US "either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate 'United States' in any given article"

Item: 8
At: September 11 attacks#Congressional inquiry
Old: members of congress
New: members of Congress
Per: Dictionary entry

Item: 9
At: September 11 attacks#Congressional inquiry
Old: redacted material from the Congressional inquiry
New: redacted material from the congressional inquiry
Per: Dictionary entry 68.97.42.64 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)