Talk:Casualties of the September 11 attacks

This article was nominated for deletion on 23/7/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merging pages

This article is different from the one nominated for deletion about a year ago. It no longer has a list of survivors' names. The main body of the text describes how few survived and where they were located in the building. This could be easily merged with the main article or the WTC article. I am not aware of any reason why this needs to be a separate article, though this AFD could offer explanations.

At this point, I recommend and merge and redirect. Editors who have worked hard on this should be encouraged to continue to do so after the merge, if that's what is decided Chergles (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is being merged into the new Casualties of the September 11 attacks article, which is an effort to consolidate material in such as what's is in this "survivors" article. --Aude (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion

So I take it no muslims died on the day? Or do we need a reference for religion? Faro0485 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-American casualities

In "Non-American casualities" there appears to be an error regarding the UK and Bermuda. The table states that there was 67 UK casualties and one from Bermuda. The * indicates that the 67 includes Bermuda (so why listed twice). However, the text above the table states:

UK with 67 deaths (excluding the overseas territory of Bermuda).

This is contradictory information, can anyone clarify please. Darkieboy236 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are the casualties from Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Canada etc. listed as "Non-Americans"? 89.50.28.191 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You very well know why. Stop trying to instigate an argument. The majority of English speakers know Americans as those from the United States. Feel free to go to a non-English language Wikipedia and make that argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.83.167 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Integrating hijacker numbers into casualty totals

I don't see why all of the casualty totals listed here exclude hijacker deaths in their counts. It seems to me that this subject should be treated without a normative judgment as to what does or doesn't count as a death worthy of inclusion in the statistics. I also notice that the numbers in the main September 11 attacks article make a point of including hijacker deaths. So I'd like to here call for a reworking of the numbers, for consistency with other Wiki articles and for a non-normative look at the subject matter. Thoughts? Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Casualty denotes being a victim, including in the battlefield where a casualty might result from enemy fire, friendly fire, or other circumstances. However I have never heard of anyone being referred to as a casualty of suicide. The perpetrators clearly initiated actions intended to bring about their own deaths along with the slaughter and destruction of others. Their own deaths cannot be described as anything but suicide.79.183.45.200 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So if somehow the suicidal terrorists manage to survive miraculously (just like the passport) then they would not be counted as casualties...??? This seems to be more a judgement or some sort of punishment and nothing to do with statistics. This is probably not the place for this - but many of the so-called terrosists have since turned up alive. so it would be more appropriate to just call them dead.

Regarding definitons of casualty:

ca·su·al·ties

1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.

2. One injured or killed in an accident: eg. a train wreck with many casualties.

3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: eg. Battlefield casualties were high.

4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance

Clearly 3 & 4 describe EXACTLY what happened on 9-11 - so all people who died are casualties by this definition. Not just "Victims" - even —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.179 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should retitle this "persons murdered on September 11th" to remove ambiguity. Suicides are not murders.71.109.161.88 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Any changes of the title of this article should be proposed on the talk page for the 9/11 wikiproject. If it's changed without doing this, chances are that one of us are going to change it back so save yourself the trouble. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue. Any actual death toll that you will find in the media or in articles specifically excludes the hijackers. You can see it here [1] as an example (I could spend more time finding examples, but in the interest of time, here me out). The 'death toll' of the September 11th attacks is the number of deaths caused by the perpetrators of the attacks. Even if you say victims, like someone said above, the hijackers aren't the victims.

I purpose to continually keep this separate because many official counts do this as well. If anyone proposes to otherwise, I request that you post specific 9/11 articles linking to why this is justified, because I am going to post the ones that do not include the hijackers specifically if it is contested. It is CRUCIAL to keep it separate, and it is going to take a lot of convincing of the members of the 9/11wikiproject to get it changed otherwise.WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the People Who Jumped?

In the "By the Numbers" section, are the individuals who jumped counted as coming from the floors where the plane impacted or higher, or is there a separate count? Ileanadu (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

there is nothing reliably accurate to the number of jumpers. Some sources are well over 200 while some are half of that. So it seems that the numbers refer to where the victims were at plane impact as opposed to where they actual died.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Flight 93

There is literally nothing about Flight 93 in this article. I am not well knowledged in this topic, so I wish for someone who is to add a section and more overall to the article. Unknowntbeast (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and think that it is a huge weakness point in the article that it doesn't include this. I am a member of the 9/11 wikiproject, so I will make it a personal goal of mine to make this change. Thanks for the comment! WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on figures

Hi - I'm trying to clean up the sourcing on the September 11 attacks‎ page. There are several different numbers given for the total number of victims and victims for the WTC attacks. (sourced to a variety of better and worse sources) What's considered the definitive source for this? (I see "The Online Rocket" article is used here too - as the college newspaper for Slippery Rock University, it simply isn't RS for something like this, and I recommend it get replaced by something better) The CNN article does not state where its figures come from, so it's difficult to know if it can be used as the definitive number.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't even give that number. I have a feeling someone has deliberately given fake numbers, and the number contradicts the total given on the mian 9/11 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleveland84 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Relax on the conspiracy theories, Cleveland84. There are people trying to mess up this article but no one actually fixing this article is screwing it up (look at my revisions over the past 3 months and you'll see that). I think the problem is that kids and non-informed individuals are trying their hand at contributing to these articles when they aren't qualified. Not saying you aren't, but I see it all the time.

Anyway, VseV, this is worth discussing. I personally don't feel that the "Online Rocket" or Slippery Rock University are entities that sound viable at all and I agree with your assumption of that.

New York magazine has a few interesting statistics on their page: http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm In regards to this and the CNN page, you have to understand that popular media is not the same as academic journal media - they are not required to reveal all of their sources. With that being said, we have to accept whether or not these individual sites and publishers are respectable entities. I personally think New York Magazine is reputable. What are your thoughts? WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Start Class

There is no way by any stretch of the imagination that this is still a start class article. For the purposes of the 9/11 wikiproject, I am going to change it to a C class and then once I add a section on here regarding Flight 93 and Pennsylvania, I think it should be considered for a B class (after specific grammar review). People need to start committing more to these articles, however, because it's frustrating that people pose comments and never reply to them. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)