Wikipedia talk:WikiProject September 11, 2001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WiiAlbanyGirl (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 21 September 2011 (Importance Scale Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC on September 11, 2001 attacks

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#RFC on page title and comma - We need outside opinions on what the appropriate grammar and application of the manual of style is here in this situation. Should the page title and the article start out with "September 11, 2001 attacks" (no comma) or "September 11, 2001, attacks"? A third option is to rename the page to something like "September 11 attacks". We would appreciate comments on the article talk page. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General renaming of relevant articles following the move of 9/11 attacks

Since September 11, 2001 attacks has been moved to September 11 attacks, doesn't this mean that articles containing the title should follow suit? The arguments for the main article's move apply to them as well, and we might as well do the whole job in one go. The articles I have found so far (through {{Sept11}}) are:

There is also the category (Category:September 11, 2001 attacks) and 10 out of its 13 sub-categories (and a sub-category of one of them), as well as the name of this WikiProject itself.

Perhaps someone should have mentioned all this while discussing the initial move. I have only just realised the volume of the work that needs to be done if we are to have consistency. Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with this. Can't see any reason not to. Also, I think you over estimate the work needed to do this: with the mother article, the new name was a redirect so a deletion then a move had to occur. However, with most of those above, the new name doesn't exist. I reckon I'll go through and move some if I can. Deamon138 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could have expressed myself better. It's the moving plus the consensus for it that concerns me. Can we consider the initial consensus applying on all these articles? Or even on the categories?
And, in the end, the WikiProject itself might have to move. That's its members' decision, of course, but more consistency can't hurt. Waltham, The Duke of 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving these articles and the WikiProject is all okay. I say the consensus comes with moving the main article. --Aude (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus for moving the mother article can be applied here. I know for a fact that the people at CfD like to keep category names inline with main article names if possible. I can't see any argument against this. Besides, if anyone disagrees, then so be it. But I think being bold is fair. Deamon138 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved most of the above, but there are still a few things I reckon we should discuss:

Should we move Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, or keep if it's the official name?

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks needs to be unprotected so it can be moved.

Category:September 11, 2001 attacks and its subcategories need to be moved, but I don't know how.

This Wikiproject could be moved. One of its members supports it, and there is the original support for renaming the mother article, but the question is: should consensus for moving the project be from the community overall, or just the project's members? If it should be just the permission of its members, then we should ask the other three.

I also have a proposal for the other ones I haven't done. That is, these ones:

  1. September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services
  2. September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture
  3. September 11, 2001 attacks timeline beyond October
  4. September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for October
  5. September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September
  6. September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks All five here done (see above)

Aside from removing the 2001 and comma for each, and fixing the pluralization on the first one, I think we should get these to fit in line with the other ones I've moved i.e. have them all end in "September 11 attacks". For example, I think we should move September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September to something like September timeline for the September 11 attacks. What do people think of this idea, and the other points of discussion above? Deamon138 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving the pages. For the Joint Inquiry article, let's keep the current title since that's an official name. For the timeline and other articles listed, what you suggest sounds good. Also, the WikiProject can be moved. This is a new wikiproject, and it's really no big deal. For the category, a bot would need to do that. What needs to happen is to recatgorize all the articles into new categories. Then, once the old categories are empty, they can be deleted. For the reactions article, I could move it. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have moved that Reactions one, so thanks for doing that. I did a Google, and it does look like the Joint Inquiry one is its official name, so that's fine if we keep it there (I doubt that there's a standout common name for this one, so official is ok). Anyway, where do we get ourselves a bot? Deamon138 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOTREQ is the place to ask. --Aude (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I reckon we should decide how we want to do the ones remaining from that list first, and then request a bot afterwards.
Also, I did another google here. That looks to be all the pages with "September 11, 2001" in the title on Wikipedia, that Google knows about. I don't know if we've done all of them apart from those I mentioned above or not. That search needs to be sifted through. Deamon138 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much preference on renaming the remaining articles. Your suggestion is good with me. It will take Google some time to catch up with all the page moves. So, it's not worth looking there now to find remaining pages to rename. I think we got most, if not all. --Aude (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Not quite all. I went through that Google, and found some more that need to be moved which I shall do (I compared with the list we had moved to check):

They were missed because either they didn't have a template on them, or they had the "Sep11" template rather than the "Sept11" more common template. Incidentally, the "Sep11" template has been put up for deletion. I think I'll add the other template to those articles while I move them too. Deamon138 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aude, since you're an admin, can you delete Songs about the September 11 attacks (which is currently a redirect), so that Songs about the September 11, 2001 attacks can be moved there please? Thanks in advance. :D Deamon138 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved that page over the redirect. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Deamon138 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've all the articles have been done now I reckon (unless there's some others sneaking about somewhere, though I doubt it). That is sufficiently bold enough for me, I'll leave everything else for now. I hope people like the new page names for those 5/6 above that I changed the word order on. Those are the best names I can come up with, but if someone doesn't like them, then so be it. Let's hope they're ok! :) Deamon138 (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your quick and efficient response. I have commented on {{Sep11}}'s deletion and have updated the links in {{Sept11}} to point to the right articles (so that an article's title will appear bold and black when the box is in that article). I'd also like to say that I prefer the new names of the timelines and some other articles; these moves have been an opportunity to do some improvement in the naming area.
As far as the categories are concerned, I propose listing them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion; I believe that the re-categorisations of the articles are taken care of if the moves are approved, something that should happen without any problems. Waltham, The Duke of 12:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the proposal for all these categories to be renamed at [1]. Deamon138 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working on the page moves. It's a huge help. I left comments regarding the category renaming. --Aude (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no problem. I comment too much on talk pages, so I felt I ought to do some manual work for a change! :-) Deamon138 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Version 0.7 selections

I saw notices left for other WikiProjects about Wikipedia Version 0.7 selections, but since this project is new and not many articles are tagged yet, we didn't get a notice. A bot selected the articles, with the list here [2]. This is an opportunity for general cleanup and addressing weaknesses. The Version 0.7 team wants good revisions selected by October 20. We can also make suggestions. --Aude (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles

Here are the selections that fall within this project, along with issues. --Aude (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worked on the article, it's better, though still needs more references. Also, the 1993 bombing section is still a mess, and the subarticle needs work. Something more is also needed on the collapse of the WTC, with that subarticle also in need of much improvement. Once both subarticles are brought up to acceptable standards (next priorities), then it will be much easier to go back to the main WTC article and follow summary style. --Aude (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osama bin Laden - The "Criminal charges and attempted extradition" section reads like a timeline, other sections need cleanup and general improvement
  • Cleaned up the criminal charges section, though the article still needs overall improvements. --Aude (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al-Qaeda - in decent shape, but the "Refuge in Afghanistan" section needs cleanup. The "Regional activities" section used to be a mess, with material since put into subarticles, so it's better now. But, the section needs more substance now in summary style.
  • United Airlines Flight 93 - featured article, no issues
  • The Pentagon - article is in terrible shape, I have not done much at all with it yet. The "Facts and figures" section needs to go, and the article also has the dreaded "popular culture" section.
  • also a priority --Aude (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • made some improvements, though still needs more sources and the popular culture section has some issues. --Aude (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned up and added refs to the popular culture section. The article is in pretty good shape now, though needs more work to get it up to GA standards. --Aude (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freedom Tower - this gets a large number of page views, so it's important. Fortunately, the article appears in good shape.
  • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey - good article, still seems okay.
  • American Airlines Flight 11 - featured article, no issues
  • American Airlines Flight 77 - featured article, no issues
  • War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) - I have not touched this one. Although there is a substantial amount of useful information, the article needs much work to bring up to standards. I can see the task of adding sources and cleanup being a very time-consuming. Large portions of the article do not have inline citations. The article also has a lengthy "public opinion" section which is merely a list. The "Human rights abuses" section has been tagged with neutrality issues since December 2007. I also don't think the article is very up-to-date with more recent events in Afghanistan.
  • Mohamed Atta - in good shape
  • Ziad Jarrah - this is a featured article, though it passed FAC a few years ago when the criteria were not as stringent. The article did pass a featured article review in September 2007, so it's still in pretty good shape, but at some point should be brought up to current featured article standards.
  • 7 World Trade Center - featured article
  • 1993 World Trade Center bombing - this needs quite a bit of work, though needs to draw on different sources including The New Jackals by Simon Reeve and Two Seconds Under the World by Jim Dwyer. Thus, I see a time commitment involved.
  • also a priority --Aude (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • made improvements, and think the article is okay for including as-is, though needs more work to get it to GA quality. --Aude (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayyid Qutb - this article falls within scope of the project. Qutb was an important influence for Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The article is mostly good shape, though it has an "Original research" maintenance tag in one section.
  • Collapse of the World Trade Center - this has long been subject to problems. Needs a bit of work to bring up to standards, and should be done together with the main World Trade Center article, so summary style is followed.
  • next priority --Aude (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • made some improvements, though more work is needed to bring this article up to WP:GA standards. --Aude (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a priority, which I'm working on now. --Aude (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • made improvements. --Aude (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended for removal

Both these have lesser importance and quality, etc. compared to the general 9/11 conspiracy theories article and United Airlines Flight 175, thus are recommended for removal from the selection list:

  • World Trade Center (film) - Surely, there are standards on Wikipedia for film articles, but I have not worked on any film-related articles and don't know how the article should be. I do see there are only 8 references.
  • Loose Change (film) - this got selected

I suggest taking out Loose Change, as well as World Trade Center (film) which is start-class, and including both these among the selections. --Aude (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories and United Airlines Flight 175 have been added to the selection list. A decision on the others has not been made yet. --Aude (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'll see what I can do with World Trade Center and The Pentagon. Thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have book sources, especially for the WTC, so I should be able to get the article improved. I also have some sources for the Pentagon, but it's a big task that I really can't do right now, other than maybe purging the "facts & figures". --Aude (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing and contextualizing minority 9/11 theories

Review of Talk:September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories would be appreciated. The debate here is not about whether the existence of non-mainstream "conspiracy" theories should be mentioned at all, but rather about whether they should be put in context. By "context," I mean the fact that "conspiracy" approaches have been both rejected and accepted by notable entities. In other words, I mean that which is being removed here and restored here. My position is that the National Institute of Standards and Technology and "the community of civil engineers" (both of which have opposed non-mainstream theories) and a third of the American public (which supports these theories), as reported by Time magazine (which even goes so far as to call them "mainstream," but not so far as to voice its own support of them) are all notable enough to mention. My position is that this balance is fully in accord with the spirit of WP:NPOV, and especially in accord with its WP:DUE section, which states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and therefore, as far as I can tell, encourages the attribution of the minority perspective, regardless of how true or false that perspective may ultimately turn out to be. Indeed, in this debate I have cited WP:V, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Those who oppose the contextualization of these theories have also pointed to WP:DUE, but in a way that I view to be mistaken--namely, by suggesting that reliable sources should back a theory, while WP:DUE emphasizes the extent to which theories are held, regardless of their veracity, rather than "backed" by any particular types of evidence. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those who do not share my position (although the spirit of it also applies to those who do), I've made what I feel to be a basic--yet an important--suggestion in this diff on the 9/11 talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks - please help

I believe the page U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks has serious problems with POV, balance, poor sourcing, attributions of responsibility to living persons, and extensive quoting (whole paragraphs found on 9/11 conspiracy pages). (See the discussion page for that article for more.) I'm afraid that I reacted out of frustration and deleted several paragraphs, stating my reasons, but not waiting for discussion or consensus. Of course, all my deletions were restored the next day.

However, that leaves these serious problems intact. I'm fairly new to editing pages and I just don't know where to go with this. I looked at the dispute resolution page, and one suggestion was to ask for help here. I have participated in a sometimes heated discussion with one other editor (the person I presume to be behind many of these problems) on the discussion page, where I posted my reasons why I thought the article needed to be rewritten and brought into compliance with Wikipedia policy. Of course that resolved nothing, and I suspect that any further edits on my part will be immediately reversed.

I think this article needs immediate attention and help from someone more experienced than I am. Thank you! Dcs002 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: This issue is now in mediation with the Mediation Cabal. The problems remain, but we're working on it. Dcs002 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:39, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:9-11 Ribbon

Template:9-11 Ribbon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Smallman12q (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism vs Overseas Contingency Operation

Hey all. I'm asking users from this WikiProject and other WikiProjects to weigh in at the talk page for a question about the War on Terrorism page: specifically at this section. Currently, the page says the war ran from "October 7, 2001 - January 20, 2009", where it ends because the Obama administration has discontinued use of the term in favor of the "Overseas Contingency Operation". However, Overseas Contingency Operation currently redirects back to War on Terrorism. The way I see it, we need to either a) create a new Overseas Contingency Operation page that encompasses everything that has gone on since 1/20/09 with the Obama administration and the war on terror, or b) Incorporate toe OCO stuff into the existing War on Terrorism page, in which case the date would be "October 7, 2001 - present". I personally can see merit to both ideas, but I'm not the expert, so I'm seeking input from people more qualified than me to see if we can develop a consensus. I'm hoping we can War on Terrorism page: keep the discussion here so the discussion doesn't split into multiple discussions on multiple WikiProject talk pages. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD:Reverse scientific method

Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Ziad Jarrah

I have nominated Ziad Jarrah for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of WikiProject

Would anyone be opposed to renaming this WikiProject to Wikipedia:WikiProject September 11 attacks? I'm assuming the current name of the WikiProject was to mirror the name of the article at the time (though it omitted "attacks"), but has since been moved from September 11, 2001 attacks to September 11 attacks. Surely the WikiProject should follow suit? — ξxplicit 03:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks GA review

September 11 attacks has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Laurent (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:September 11 attacks

I've compiled a book of articles related to the attacks, which is based on the current {{September 11}} template. Please feel free to add anything that's missing or change anything that's not right. Also, I notice some 9/11 related articles are semi-protected so it might be worth considering a semi-protection of the book if that is possible. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple proposed changes - please read, members!

I wanted to pick everyone's brain on a couple points. 1 is the notability issue of the Stairwell A article. It had a nonsourced tag, which I removed because I added a citation directly from the 9/11 commission report to it. Also, Stairwell A is directly mentioned more than once in the 9th chapter of the Commission report as the sole, intact staircase in the South Tower. I wanted to know if you feel that this specific mentioning in the commission report warranted our removal of the notability tag. I think that its mention makes it notable-your thoughts, all?

Also, I added 2 sources to the survivors section of the Casualities page regarding the WTC specifically. Someone had incorrectly stated that Stairwell B was the only intact stairway after impact on the South Tower and had a significant lack of information (which I corrected with 2 citations). However, there's something that I am calling into question since it is unsourced. The Casualities article mentions that 'only 23 survivors who were in or below the towers escaped from the debris, including 15 rescue workers', but my Time magazine source (which I mentioned in the article and can be seen [3] seems to refute the fact by saying "(Giselle Guzman-McMillian) became the last of just four people caught in the debris to be found alive. (An additional 14, mostly fire fighters, survived relatively unscathed in a lower part of stairway B that stayed upright.)" I would have changed it myself but I wasn't sure if you've seen or heard of a source that backs up the original article's claim.

Lastly, I would like to proposed that the 9/11 attacks casualities page be bumped up from start class to something higher that we all agree on given the status of the article. It's FAR from start class, and it is currently rated as start class-top importance. Let's all agree what it should be before I change it but it shouldn't be start class. Thanks for your help in advance. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the September 11, 2001 articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 9/11 navigational templates

There should be a list, somewhere, of the navigational templates related to this project. I'm afraid I can't find it. Not everyone does (or knows how to) include a pointer to the project within a "noinclude" tag in relevant templates. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

(The first part of this may be considered WP:CANVASSing. I don't think it is, but I'll accept rebukes. However, the project should have been informed of the RfC.)

Recently, per consensus, all trace of the conspiracy theory articles have been removed from the main article, September 11 attacks. I acknowledge that, although I don't think it's enough to override the long-term consensus for inclusion.

Now, editors are removing it from the main template {{September 11 attacks}}, claiming the consensus for removal from the article extends to the template. I consider that unjustified, although I can't find any prior discussion as to what should be in the template. Although (only) User:Tom harrison disagrees, it appears to me to be an attempt to isolate the conspiracy theories and theorists into a WP:Walled garden, and then possibly request deletion.

Any comments?

I'm not sure whether discussion should be here or at Template talk:September 11 attacks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stable version should remain until discussion proceed. That said perhaps a section called "Related" may help? Templates are here to help our readers navigate "existing" articles that are related. Making an article hidden in a circular manner is not helpful. If there is a problem with the article it should be deleted - not orphaned within its own small little base of articles.Moxy (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been informed that the articles would not be completely walled off, as it's linked from List of conspiracy theories. Still, in another topic, I supported removing a host of polychoron articles, even though they are linked from some conventional articles, on the grounds that there was only one source for the names, and they are only accepted within the geometry hobbyist community. (Which is much smaller, even in relation to mathematicians, than the 9/11 conspiracy community is among relevant professionals.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no danger of these articles being orphaned. The're linked all over the project. From the template alone they're linked from Aftermath of the September 11 attacks, List of cultural references of the September 11 attacks, Rumors about the September 11 attacks, Responsibility for the September 11 attacks, Hijackers in the September 11 attacks, 9/11 Commission, and Collapse of the World Trade Center. Beyond that, over 250 pages link from articles to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of those, 84 are redirects. It's not going to be orphaned. Like most fringe subjects it has been unduly (and unintentionally, in most cases) promoted, giving readers and maybe search engines an impression of cultural significance that isn't supported to that extent in reliable sources. I don't want to Suppress the Truth, I just want to give due weight. Tom Harrison Talk 18:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely...the preponderance of CT articles related to 9/11 is exhaustive...Arthur keeps saying there is no consensus for the CT removal from the template even though he has had his efforts ot add it, enhance it reverted by 4 editors. Being bold is one thing...but skimming the boundaries of the 3RR rule to POV push one's perferred version over the version already reached by consensus and affirmed by at least 4 other editors is another.--MONGO 02:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not affirmed even by a current, reasoned consensus, and considering the template has been surprisingly stable for some time, a weak current consensus would not be adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the first removal was justified, then so is the second. It makes no sense to maintain different standards on a template vs. on an article. Imagine Reason (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support this project

Someone mentioned to me recently that it might be beneficial for this project to be supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project and talk page it appears that there is some activity but I thought I would ask anyway. Please let me know if the members of this project would be interested in this. --Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to check back here. Its been 14 days with only a couple of comments not on this page. I'll give it a couple more days to see if anyone else wants to comment and then I'll go ahead and add it to the supported projects list. --Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes. And obviously, you have met no opposition... | helpdןǝɥ | 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would this association consist of? | helpdןǝɥ | 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Question, I hope this helps to explain, sorry for the length. The project page with members stay basically as they are with the members dictating how things happen, scope of the project, etc. Its not going to be absorbed or dissolved in any way and the scope won't change unless the members want it too. The only change would be that the WikiProject banner would be replaced with the WPUS banner with WikiProject September 11, 2001 embedded within it. You can take a look at Category talk:Visitor attractions in South Carolina to see an example. All the individual projects will function as they do and the WPUS project will perform certain tasks just as the Federal government does things and the states do things also.

All the projects use a standard group of parameters (Needs infobox, image, map, geocoordinates, attention, etc), and the banner allows for things like project to do lists, articles with to do lists and articles with comments. I am working on developing some bot tasks that would automate the adding and removing of some of the parameter values like needs infobox, image, attention, etc. and hope to have those out in the next couple months. This also reduces the number of banners on the talk page of the articles. All the projects use the same article classes and importance. I notice this project doesn't use the non article content classes like category, template, file, book, project, portal and FM-class and that is something I would like to adjust. This would allow article alertbot to notify the project of any of these are submitted for Discussion, deletion or review.

How it will be supported can depend on what the members of the project want but typically WPUS is a bigger project with a lot more members and the more members we have collectively the better for all, it has a newsletter, a monthly collaboration, multiple bots that run actively through the articles for various things (as can be seen on the members page) with more being setup as we go along. This means that it will be seen by a lot of people in a lot of ways. Up till now we have mostly been concentrating on building up the project but hopefully by the end of the month or next month we are going to be starting to do some drives to build up articles, create new ones, etc. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds legit. | helpdןǝɥ | 20:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of 4 World Trade Center and Four World Trade Center

Please discuss. | helpdןǝɥ | 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of 5 World Trade Center and Five World Trade Center

Please discuss. | helpdןǝɥ | 01:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New importance scale.

I am proposing a new importance scale. Check it out,

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to the topic "September 11th". Think of articles that a "September 11 attacks" encylcopeida could not do without. Articles actually covering the event would be included here. September 11 attacks
 High Subject is extremely notable, but not crucial, to the topic "September 11th". Articles covering key factors and locations with an intermediate connection with the event would be included here. American Airlines Flight 11
 Mid Subject is somewhat notable. Covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of the September 11 attacks. Additional, but not crucial, to the topic "September 11". Key persons or entities associated with the attacks would be included here. Khalid al-Mihdhar
 Low Subject is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of the September 11 attacks. May only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Article spinoffs and articles covering aftermath issues and smaller aspects would be included here. Construction of the World Trade Center
 ??? Any article which has not yet been assessed on the importance scale.

What do you think? | helpdןǝɥ | 19:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IHelpWhenICan. Thank you for your post. I don't see a lot of people active on here, which is a real travesty that I wish we could change. I totally agree with this because I think the classification of articles has not been representative of true priorities.... for instance, Stairwell_A is ranked as a top importance article, and while I wrote this article for the most part so I respect its importance, its ranking should be a lot lower on the importance scale. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_September_11,_2001&oldid=451603310"