Talk:September 11 attacks

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Why not add the first airplane video from Commons? (First Plane WTC) 174.3.207.112 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is pretty well illustrated right now; I don't see an appropriate place to add this video without over-cluttering the page with imagery. Liu1126 (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Why not replace the second plane video? This one is more prominent and historically significant rather than the crash seen by hundreds of video tapes. Orastor (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  22:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

“United States” in lead

Should the “United States” in the lead be a link to the U.S.’s article, being the first mention of the country in the page? Jackvoeller (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Why, is it likly people will need to know what we mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopedia, we can't assume that everyone knows what the United States is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely you are not serious? (Note: I live in the opposite side of the world to the US).14.2.196.234 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. Wikipedia can't make any assumption about its readers other than that they are literate in English. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone literate in English knows what the United States is. We do not assume our readers are completely ignorant of the world, WP:SKYBLUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That has to do with citations, not linking. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's the same concept. We don't need to link to the United States, in an article about an attack against the United States, in the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Foortnite-rizzler (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Originally animated to show hands being raised, as might be done along with the the exclamation Banzai! in Japan. Now more commonly only shows the hands in the air. Raising Hands was approved as part of Unicode 6.0 in 2010 under the name "Person Raising Both Hands in Celebration" and added to Emoji 1.0 in 2015.

 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. Unclear what change you are asking for or how it applies to the Sept. 11 article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks → 9/11 – As the article states, the attacks are commonly known as “9/11”, most people refer to it as “9/11”, other articles about it on Wikipedia itself have “9/11” in the title such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 truth movement, and the United States Government’s commission into the attacks and that commission’s report on the attacks refer to it as “9/11”. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Are they really commonly known as “9/11”, everywhere, by everyone? I don't refer to it as “9/11”, but you see, I'm not American. I doubt if anyone else I know refers to it as “9/11”. There is a major problem with that name for this GLOBAL encyclopaedia. To me, and to almost everyone outside the USA, 9/11 means the 9th of November. I believe we need to keep the more explicit, globally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11". Not only is "9/11" a common colloquial term, but it has also been officially adopted in various contexts. As MountainDew20 pointed out, both the United States Government's commission and its report on the attacks use the term "9/11." This lends official credibility to the usage of the term. Since other articles related to the September 11th attacks already use "9/11" in their titles, it makes sense to align the main article's title with this established convention. Also, being as this was a terrorist attack based in America, it should titled what it is referred to as in America. Yes, this is a global encyclopedia, but it is formatted mostly in American format. For instance, look up "color". The article is in the American format, instead of "colour". Same for "potato chip". Also, while the term "9/11" may have originated in the United States, it has become globally recognized and widely used to refer to the September 11th attacks. This term has transcended national boundaries and is commonly understood by people around the world. Using "9/11" in the title can actually enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. Many individuals, especially those who are not native English speakers, might naturally search for "9/11" when looking for information about the attacks, given its widespread usage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and widely recognized information. If "9/11" is the commonly used and understood term, it serves the encyclopedia's mission to use that term as the title for the article. Pmealer126 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11".

Your personal experience is not a WP:RS for making changes to Wikipedia articles. Again, the problem is that moving this article to "9/11" introduces too much ambiguity and makes it more difficult for users to find this article, we would have to disambiguate the article. Such a move does not enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As HiLo points out, moving it to 9/11 would just mean confusing it with the actual date scheme. This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME falls afoul of making things more confusing and harder to find the correct article. So I have to say Oppose to this proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per HandThatFeeds. I'm also not convinced it is the common name outside of being a colloquialism. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica. I agree we can use the shorter form for some of the subtopics see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Requested move 31 January 2022 but I think the main article should use the full term even though its primary for the number term with the slash. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — Colloquialism. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — Colloquialism. And early WP:SNOW close In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — far too colloquial and I really can't think of any other attacks that happened on that date that the September 11 attacks could be reasonably mistaken for. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Too informal. trainrobber >be me 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:ElijahPepe, User:In ictu oculi, User:Hmm1994 and User:Trainrobber66. JIP | Talk 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sidebar article expansion

Thoughts on expanding this sidebar to related articles? trainrobber >be me 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: It has snowed heavily today. Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – They're terrorist attacks, so why not extend the name so everyone knows that it's terrorism? WP:CONCISE GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Incredulous oppose. Because of the superfluity of "terrorist", that's why not. You prop up your plea for lengthening the title by citing WP:CONCISE, which says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". Uh-huh. I suggest that "September 11 attacks" (i) is brief, and (ii) provides sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SNOW close. There's no ambiguity with the original wording (at least not one that would be solved by the addition of the word "terrorist", as other attacks on other September 11s have also involved terrorists), and if sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area is the goal (per the comment above) I'd say that criteria is already met – this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not sure how WP:CONCISE can be cited to lengthen a title. — Czello ^(music) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. As for other articles with this name, this is ambiguously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A read of WP:CONCISE, which was linked in the move rationale without elaboration, appears to solidly refute such a move. - Aoidh (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and SNOW close. There's nothing confusing here, and citing CONCISE is... bizarre, considering you're making the title longer, while clarifying nothing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This brings completely unnecessary clarity. In addition, the fact they were terrorist attacks is already mentioned in the first sentence, so any confusion as to whether it is a government attack or a terrorist attack is rapidly shut down during almost any readers first read through. On top of that, if the new title goes in the opening sentence, it simply clutters up the sentence by repeated information. In general it is an unnecessary change, and this argument should be shut down. I would agree with applying WP:SNOW in this case. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Snow Oppose, the September 11 attacks are a widely known common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose- Common name and what is is mostly called LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica as noted above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, the current is common and the proposed may be WP:OVERPRECISE and less WP:CONCISE, all just to emphasise the type of attack. DankJae 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"At morning"

In the intro section, the sentence that begins "At morning," doesn't quite read clearly to American English readers. Just a suggestion that it be changed to "That morning" or "In the morning" or a similarly appropriate substitute. 2601:CD:4000:610:F435:89A0:E7C4:EA0B (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)