Talk:September 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Days of the year
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Days of the Year, a WikiProject dedicated to improving and maintaining the style guide for date pages.

--mav 00:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This box: viewtalkedit
Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the Main Page
Please read the selected anniversaries guidelines before editing this box.

September 11: National Day of Catalonia

Portrait of Gabriel Fauré by John Singer Sargent
Portrait of Gabriel Fauré by John Singer Sargent

Stephen Hagiochristophorites (d. 1185) · Mary Watson Whitney (b. 1847) · Murali Kartik (b. 1976)

More anniversaries:

Hat notes[edit]

The addition of a hat note for the 1973 Chilean Coup, is not appropriate for this page. Hat notes are only to be used if someone could reasonably have typed in the name of the article expecting to arrive at a different article. See WP:HN. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Its also a PVO issue for notable events(Lihaas (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)).
Please elaborate. I'm not following you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
RS sources have noted it as a proper noun [1][2][3] + [4][5]
even more ironic "Tuesday 11 September 1973 two jets launched' a deadly attack "(Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)).
I'm not seeing anything that indicates that the event is called September 11. What is the likelihood that someone would type in September 11 expecting to get to 1973 Chilean coup d'état? If the likelihood is low then we're just subjectively elevating one event to a hat note over all the others. In the links you provide, it just seems that the date is mentioned as part of the story. Even if I stop someone on the street in Chile and ask them what they think of when I say September 11 and they say the 1973 coup that doesn't build a significant argument. If I asked the question in several countries and the answer was the 1973 coup (or even if the 1973 coup was in the top 5) that might be a good argument. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from outside the USA, my understanding is Wikipedia was started in the USA... but I think the key thing to consider here is what do we want Wikipedia to be? What is the vision? Is it simply a magazine for those Americans with a constant need to reinforce their own world view? Or is it a worldwide encyclopaedia telling us about things we didn't already know - about ourselves & about others who we share the earth with? I am one, just one of the many who look up September 11 each year. When I look up look up this date on Wikipedia though it is to see how Wikipedia is coming along in its vision. The debate on these talk pages is more encouraging this year but the result on the main page looks like showing me again what I perceive as parochial bias. I don't think the victims of Pinochet would wish to be associated in any way with Al Quaida, nevertheless on the day when the attacks on New York happened many around the world were remembering the events of '73, and wondering if the terrorists had planned it that way...

Noam Chomsky seems to think it's called september 11th: "what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the US succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office" <ref></ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
you wanted RS sources of the proper noun to show the use. WP is not google. it eeds to be npov. it nots part of the story (fuirst 3 links) its he crux of the story by RS sources, well maybe the question should be asked for further proof.(Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)).
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding your argument. What proper noun are you talking about? And where are you seeing POV? Perhaps it would be better to focus on the true question as I have asked above: What is the likelihood that someone would type in September 11 expecting to get to 1973 Chilean coup d'état? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sept 11 as a specific event. the likelihood of someone TYPING something is not grounds for an encyclopaedic assessment of notability. this is not twitter or google.(Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)).
I think you misunderstand the purpose of a hat note. The purpose is to get someone to where they thought they would get by typing in the name of an article. If it were anything other than that, we could potentially have 50 hat notes on every date article. Elevating one event to a hat note over another for any other reason does have POV issues and is entirely subjective. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Were obviously not putting everything, were putting mega events and the parallels have certainly be noted (mostly for being irnoic)(Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

  • If you want to indulge in original research disguised as commentary, by all means launch your own 'Ironicpaedia'. Here, I'm afraid, we'll just have to deal with the factual thingies. And the proper purpose of hat notes, as been explained to you multiple times. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11September 11 (date) – The vast, vast majority of people who end up at this article are probably looking for the terrorist attacks article, not the day of the year. I propose that we move this to September 11 (date) and redirect "September 11" to the attacks article. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Google September 11 -wikipedia and everything that comes up is the terrorist attack. Kauffner (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That logic could be used to suggest December 7, July 4, 1984, or 42 be moved. (I just checked, and the 'primary topics' come up more than the general date/year does for those) I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but I would say those moves would fail overwhelmingly, especially the first two, as being (at the very least) American-centric. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Surprised it's taken 10 years for this issue to be raised, but it makes a lot of sense to rename it as proposed. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Pending consideration for WP:DAYS and all the templates that point to this page and pages like it. This change would affect the consistency of the 366 date articles. If there's widespread support for this, perhaps a name change for all of the date articles will be necessary. It can be argued that this scenario would apply to December 7, July 4, etc. Is a hat note not considered sufficient due to the fact that September 11 is a date first and it just happens to be the common name for a popular event? It's a widely known event, but would it be considered such by readers from all over the world? I concede that it's probably known around the world, but is September 11 primarily known for the event around the world? I don't know the answer to that. This has been brought up in some form in the archives of this page as well as WT:DAYS. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS. I understand the spirit of this proposal but think December 7 (for Americans) or June 4 (for Chinese). Wikipedia should be a little more timeless and have a more global perspective. 9-11 and 9/11 already redirect to the attacks so the mecanographically challenged should be OK. —  AjaxSmack  00:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, absolutely not. We make no exceptions for years, I see no reason to make any exception for a date. --Golbez (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
For August, September 10 got 10651 page views, September 11 got 31843, and September 12 got 9397. I think it is obvious that the vast majority of readers are here because of the attacks. Kauffner (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2011 (UmaTC)
Those numbers imply that 20k people went to 'September 11' hoping to find the attacks. This in contrast with the 491k people who went directly to the article, or the 43k who went to the 9/11 redirect. That 20k is a tiny amount in comparison - roughly 3% of the people looking for the article were inconvenienced by a second click. (interestingly, 11 September has the same ratio: roughly 3 times more visitors than the days around it. But that wouldn't mean I'd suggest it be moved) --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
So it's ok to unnecessarily inconvenience 20,000 readers, because the article's very popular? Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
We need to figure out if this is for convenience or to help people find the article. If it's for convenience, then yes, at most 20,000 extra clicks were performed to get to the article, but that only accounts for, at most, 3% of the people looking for the article. We tend to care more about assisting in finding things than mere convenience. I don't see an extra click being inconvenient, especially when the primary topic for "September 11" is the date - if you go there without any qualifier, you pretty much should expect to go to the date article. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
To add to Kauffner's data, September 11 received significantly more hits (at least 10,000 more) on September 11th than the other days go on their respective days. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. As Kauffner's stats show, the attacks are the clear primary topic for "September 11". It's been 10 years – this is not a case of recentism. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Golbez. Sceptre (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
For answers to these and other questions, I refer you to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Many terms refer to more than one thing, and established procedure exists. Kauffner (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per guidelines at WP:DAYS and WP:DOY; see specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#September 11 redirect, about 5 months ago. Further discussion should be there, not here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    • See WP:CONLIMITED. The consensus of one WikiProject does not over-rule site-wide guidelines and policies. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Are you sure you want to quote that policy? It means this discussion would be a nullity, and only a more general discussion could override the consensus at Wikipedia:Days of the year. I would refer you to WP:TITLE, noting consistency as one of the factors to consider, and that none of the five factors is primary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am sure. RM is a community-wide discussion, much like AfD, and the consensus of a local WikiProject can't over-ride that, much like an article that is concluded to be non-notable at AfD will be deleted, whether the relevant WikiProject thinks it's notable or not. Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This is done all the time. One topic is selected as primary. The secondary topics get disambiguators. Are you claiming this is against policy? Kauffner (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not against policy. It may be against the guidelines at WP:TITLE, and, depending on the precise situation, it may require a broad consensus (say, at WP:VP) to override a narrow consensus (say, at WP:DOY), which could, in turn, override the consensus here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons as mentioned above. Pseudois (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would you also have Wikipedia change the 1984 article to "1984 (Year)" because it is largely associated with the George Orwell novel? After all, the Google defense works there as well. Friginator (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, actually. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No more than November 5 should be changed to the gunpowder plot, or July 7 to the London bombs. As awful as 9/11 was/is, there is no justification to have one date in the whole year be handled differently by wiki than every other date. MrMarmite (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Several users have talked about the slippery slope of changing July 7, June 4, etc. because of this. I don't have a whole lot of familiarity with these events, but this rationale doesn't work unless the event is most commonly referred to and known by its date. No one refers to the London bombings as simply "July 7th" in the same way that people refer to the terrorist attacks as simply "September 11th". Does that make sense? The slippery slope rationale only applies if the events at Pearl Harbor, China, London, etc. are known by their date as 9/11 is. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack, Arthur Rubin. Deor (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In the article September 11, there is something mentioned as "This article is about the date. For the attacks in the United States, see September 11 attacks." Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:DAYS and User:MrMarmite, multiple dates have events associated to them but does not mean that event should be directed to from the date. Zarcadia (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Articles named after dates should be about the dates themselves, with no exception. Major events that happened on the dates can, of course, be covered inside the articles. However, they can never take priority over the actual date. Really, how would it look like if September 11 was about an event and each of the 364 other days in a year (365 on a leap year) was about the actual date? JIP | Talk 13:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    As I said above, there are no events that are known by their date as 9/11 is, that I know of. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant to my argument. "September 11" should be about the date itself, not about the disaster, even if it were the only notable thing to ever happen on September 11. How would it look like if, for example, someone listed dates in September, and one of those links would go to an event instead of the date, with nothing in the link's text to indicate it? JIP | Talk 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it would be confusing to treat certain dates as being about the date and others about a single event. Also, the proposal is a form of crystal-ball gazing, as it precludes any further even more significant events occurring on 11th September ever, something which we cannot control or guarantee. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not proposing that we move September 11 attacks to September 11, I'm saying September 11 should redirect to September 11 attacks with a link at the top to September 11 (date). NYyankees51 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    I know that's what you propose, and it is exactly that which I am opposing. "September 11" should be about the date, just like "September 10" or "September 12". I refuse to believe that people are so stupid that they cannot cope with an article titled for a date actually being about the date! DuncanHill (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The entire series of date articles is of the same format. Moving this would create a huge inconsistency. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The issue here is not that the events happened on September 11. The issue is that the events are often known and referred to as "September 11". Which means that, unlike other dates in the "Month day" format, a large percentage of readers will be looking for something that is not the date article. So the question is what is better for the encyclopedia and its readers: maintaining internal consistency across date articles, or allowing for an exception so that readers' expectations more closely match the article to which they are sent. It's a close question, but I think that redirecting "September 11" (and "September 11th" as well) to the article about the attacks serves readers better. Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm well aware that the incident is called "September 11". However that does not mean that the article September 11 should be about the incident. By all means have the article about the incident at September 11 (incident), September 11 (tragedy) or September 11 (disaster) for all I care. But this one particular incident, no matter how tragic it is, should not become everything there ever is to a particular date. It would look pretty stupid if September 10 and September 12 were about dates but September 11 was not, just because a terrorist attack happened on that date. 1984 isn't about the George Orwell novel either, even though the novel is known worldwide, even to people who have never read it. JIP | Talk 20:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    Why is it stupid to send the majority of readers directly to the article they want to read? Dohn joe (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    Because some things we simply have long-standing rules as to where they are. There are no exceptions for dates or years, period. Special handling for them is (or was?) built directly into the system. These types of articles should not be moved, despite many people using them for other purposes. While the attacks might be what many people are looking for, the date itself is quite plainly the primary topic. They aren't being inconvenienced by having to click another link, yet the entire date infrastructure of the site would be inconvenienced by a move. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    What makes you so sure the majority of readers want to read about the attacks? Believe or not, the attacks were not the only thing that ever happened, or will ever happen, on September 11. And besides, having one particular day break the consistency of 365 days (366 on leap years) would look incredibly stupid. JIP | Talk 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    Given the usage data posted by Kauffner above, I think it's a fair inference that at least twice as many readers a month are looking for the incident as against the date (and looking at data for other months reinforces that inference). That's a pretty solid majority of readers who are expecting to read about the incident when they type in "September 11". And I'm not sure I understand the "it will look incredibly stupid" argument. I like consistency - and in general, consistency across similar article titles does improve the experience for the reader. But not always. Wikipedia embraces inconsistency in titling all the time - when it's in the interest of the readers. Dohn joe (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    Agreed completely with Dohn joe. It is a disservice to the readers, the people who we edit for, to prevent an improvement to the encyclopedia simply for the reason that we've always done it a certain way. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    And what about those people who come to this page to see what else happened on September 11 over the years? Is it not a "disservice" to them? MrMarmite (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    We can't please everyone, but how is it logical to cater to the minority rather than the majority? Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    For one, consistency; for another, this is based entirely on unscientific access numbers that you are drawing conclusions from that may or may not be accurate. Can you please cite a policy where we move articles based entirely on analysis we make up based on access numbers? (And, here's an entertaining question, for me at least - does the number of hits on all days of the year, minus the 20,000 supposed misadventures here, total more than the hits 9/11 gets? Because if so, then we're screwing up consistency for more people than we're helping) --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - this is what folks are coming here to see. - Haymaker (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    There is a link at the top of the article to the 9/11 Attacks article. If people type in September 11 and expect to find an article about the attacks they need to make one more click, hardly tricky. Are we really saying that this date should be handled differently to all other days just to prevent the user from having to make one mouse click? MrMarmite (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; this is one of those cases where the article naming criterion of "consistency" should take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME. Such cases are rare, but this is one of them. Date articles are easier to find if they are all in a consistent format. Although some readers may be looking for the attacks under this title, surely none of them should be surprised to find themselves at an article about the date? Powers T 13:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I still find it stupid to think that the "vast, vast majority of people will be looking for the attacks instead of the date". People going to September 10 or September 12 will be looking for the dates. July 4 is about the date, not about the American Declaration of Independence, even though the event is known across the USA as "July 4". November 5 is about the date, not about the British Gunpowder Plot, even though the event is known across the UK, and mentioned in "Remember the fifth of November". 1984 is about the year, not about the novel, even though it is known across the entire world. And lastly, the attacks were not the only notable thing to ever happen on September 11. JIP | Talk 19:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    We need to be more precise here. Your quote is "Remember the fifth of November", not "Remember November 5", right?. Notice that Fifth of November takes you to Guy Fawkes Day. Likewise, Fourth of July takes you to the article on Independence Day. That's because that's what those days are actually called. Here, people actually call the incident "September 11". You may think it's "stupid", but the statistics show that we have a title which leads to around 70% of readers to the "wrong" article, which I think is strong evidence in favor of moving the title. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and readers will be inconvenienced either way. But isn't it better to reduce the inconvenience when we can? Dohn joe (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    The attacks are also actually called 9/11, and that redirect exists. And no, it doesn't lead 70% of readers astray - the figure was 3%. 70% of the people coming here are apparently either looking for 9/11 or interested in finding out what else happened that day (something you have no way of knowing), but that 70% makes up only 3%, at best, of the people actually looking for the article on 9/11. I would have to say the inconvenience caused by breaking a decade of consistency wrt date articles is far more than remedying the inconvenience of, at most, 20,000 extra clicks over a period of five weeks. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    Here's how I can be fairly sure about the numbers. I took a look (and broke out the calculator), and over the period from January through August of this year, September 10 was viewed an average of 5,284 times per month. September 12 was viewed an average of 5,307 times. September 11 was viewed an average of 25,973 times. A fair extrapolation would be that about 5,300 of those views were for all the various things that happened on the date, leaving over 20,000 views for the incident. That means it's likely that 75-80% of the readers of this page are being taken to the wrong page. I agree that a small percentage of people who are looking for the incident will be affected. Would you agree that a large percentage of people who go to September 11 are in fact being led astray? Dohn joe (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sure some are, though we can't be sure. A number could be coming to the article just to see what else happened on this day. I maintain my position that changing how things have been done for a decade, and break a fundamental consistency of the site, to convenience 20,000 clicks a month. (And, what of the ones who were here not for 9/11, but for the Chilean coup?) It's not that important. --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    Comment Dohn, I am afraid you logic is at fault here. Just because September 11 has a much higher number of visitors cannot be claimed as proof that those visitors were trying to read about the attacks. It could be just as easily be argued that this large number is due to people wanting to know what else happened on that day. It is not at all surprising that far more people would be interested in September 11 than September 12. I, for instance, came to this page to see if there were any other significant events on that date. MrMarmite (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I am definitely a proponent of consietency across the day articles, but I also see the need to exercise common sense. If readers are looking for the tragedy, let's make it as easy as possible for them.– Lionel (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: Don't we need to be mindful of special MediaWiki software stuff? Aren't dates treated specially within the MediaWiki world? What happens with date auto-formatting if September 11 (the date page) is now located at September 11 (date)? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:38, 14 September 20ee11 (UTC)
If it turns out to be a problem, we can always change it back. If the title was changed now, it would be a whole year before any issue of this kind arose. Kauffner (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Why a whole year? Doesn't it affect the way date links work? Wouldn't that affect a link to September 11 today? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this question can be struck – I don't think it applies. Swayback Maru Mufka's alternate account (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The hatnote suffices to help the reader get there after one more click. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS, and July 4, and 1492, everything everyone above has written. This too shall pass. The date will remain. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • See above from Dohn joe, "Notice that Fifth of November takes you to Guy Fawkes Day. Likewise, Fourth of July takes you to the article on Independence Day. That's because that's what those days are actually called. Here, people actually call the incident 'September 11'. You may think it's 'stupid', but the statistics show that we have a title which leads to around 70% of readers to the 'wrong' article, which I think is strong evidence in favor of moving the title. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and readers will be inconvenienced either way. But isn't it better to reduce the inconvenience when we can?" NYyankees51 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And "9/11" takes you to the article on the attacks. You seem to be saying that no one ever refers to Independence Day as "July 4". --Golbez (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We should certainly reduce inconvenience, when we can do so without compromising our fundamental principles. This proposed change would do that. Recentism and bias are just another way of saying that it would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Are you really saying that proportionately, when published reliable sources write "September 11" they mean the attacks? Surely not. On the day, or even the week, of the tenth anniversary of the attacks, and in the United States, maybe. But not the rest of the year, or in other countries, or, for that matter, all the media that were published more than 10 years ago. In total: not a chance. --GRuban (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The date is more than a single event that happened in one country on a single day, no matter how terrible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is one of the few (and possibly only) dates that is more connected with an event than an actual date. The attacks were not just a shock to the US, but to the entire world, and the average person will want to see the attack page, not the date page. Further, this is not recentism - the attacks were ten years ago. Toa Nidhiki05 23:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lots of things have happened on this date through the ages and I am against conflating the date with the terrorist attack ten years ago. --John (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the "month day_num" format should be exclusively for a list of what happened on that day in history, there will always be a given event that a given day is more closely associated with but there is no reason make this an exception. Mtking (edits) 02:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Golbez. If an alien spaceship landed next to the Eiffel Tower...maybe that date could be the exception to current policy. 9/11 is a significant date, but not that significant. Shirtwaist 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per precedent, all dates in this format link to the actual day. 9/11 already links to the attacks, so does 9-11; both are more common in written form than September 11, which is the common spoken form. Furthermore, September 11 attacks is already prominently linked at the very top of the page under debate. N419BH 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is a large number of alternative articles about events that happened on that day in other years. The link on September 11 is easy to find, and most would look for 9/11 anyway.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

*Mild oppose and question - while I agree that most people typing 'September 11' into Wikipedia are aiming to get to the terrorist attack article, I am also a proponent of consistency throughout the dating articles. I must ask, though, are there any examples of dates on Wikipedia that lead to anything other than a date article? That is, could I type in the date of a significant event and end up at the event's article rather than the date? If any are presented, I may consider altering my opinion. – Richard BB 02:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

    • No, there are no other such dates. Anyway, this proposal has already been resolved. JIP | Talk 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops, now I feel foolish! Apologies. – Richard BB 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondary proposal[edit]

How about redirecting it to a disambiguation page? The link at the top may be hard to find for infrequent readers. I don't know if disambiguations work for just two articles, but is this a viable alternative? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost all the oppose arguments above are based on the principle that this date should be handled in the same way as the other 365, your proposal would be met with exactly the same response. There is already a link at the top of this article, how that could be seen as hard to find escapes me. It's up to you, of course, but I would move on from this. MrMarmite (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
So because 2/3 of the people going to September 11 were inconvenienced by having a second click, you want to make it so... 3/3 of the people going to September 11 are inconvenienced by a second click?? --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Any arguments against that proposal would be identical to the ones already made against the previous proposal. Give the damn thing a rest. Friginator (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles named after dates and years should be about the dates and years themselves, without exception. This is one of the rare cases where there is need for such a strict rule. JIP | Talk 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

To be added[edit]

Sept 11, 1906: Mahatma Gandhi started his non-violence movement. Source: (page ) In 1906, the Transvaal government promulgated a new Act compelling registration of the colony's Indian population. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on 11 September that year, Gandhi adopted his still evolving methodology of satyagraha (devotion to the truth), or non-violent protest, for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sept 11th 1893: the Hindu monk Swami Vivekananda delivered a speech at International Parliament of Religions in Chicago about the basic tenets of Hindu Philosophy. And it was a turning point in the outlook of the world towards Hindus and Hindu philosophy.

Can't currently add it due to the page being protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Particularly the "turning point in the outlook of the world towards Hindus and Hindu philosophy" bit? N419BH 04:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sept 11th 1836: Rio-Grandense Republic become independent from the Brazilian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sept 11th 1855: William Mulholland's birthday

Sept 11th 1864: Draga Mašin 's birthday — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


The 9/11/2012 should be written "mission" instead of "missiong". -- (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for spotting that. David1217 What I've done 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers!-- (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A plea for consistency in entries[edit]

When people are listed on these date pages, please can I ask that the information given matches that on their web page. Far too often it does not.

Description of nationality is a particular issue. There are a number of hyphenated references for nationality. Is there a protocol in Wikipedia for listing nationality? It seems to me that if someone is born a certain nationality they don't stop being that nationality even if they work or live in other countries. The only change is if they renounce their original nationality.

Description of British nationality also seems an issue. On his wiki page Julian Byng is described as a British army officer. On the page for September 11 he was described as an 'English army officer'. Post 1700s this is incorrect. There is no 'English' army. I have corrected this to match his wiki page.

Robata (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

While it isn't addressed directly anywhere (that I have found), we could take direction from WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. In summary, nation of citizenship should be listed and "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Since the descriptions generally come from the opening paragraph of the bio article, this makes sense. But on review I think many bios don't follow this guideline anyway. There's also a tendency to "over-nationalize" everything possible. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove Battle of Burki and replace with the 1973 Chilean coup d'état[edit]

Sorry, but the 1973 Chilean coup d'état was far more important an event than this Battle of Burki. Should have something read that the government of Salvador Allende was ousted in a coup d'état which brought Augusto Pinochet to power. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

When you edit the box at the top, it states that the 1973 coup is ineligible to be in On This Day due to reference issues. In fact, someone brought this up today, at Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/September_11. Please contribute to the thread there, as it looks like it's hopefully a temporary issue (as I agree, that's more important than the Battle of Burki). --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014[edit]

Noticed a small mistake in the 1852 entry. It says "17 September 17" which should probably be replaced by either "17 September" or "September 17". Bergen79 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the correction suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

battle of Vienna?[edit]

Maybe the 1683 Battle of Vienna should be added as it occurred on September 11th (and 12th)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Anna Lindh[edit]

- Given the prominence of the 2001 attacks, one may look for historical links to 9/11. - Anna Lindh was not assassinated on September 11th (but on the 10th), so first of all the article is plainly wrong in this point. Secondly, there seems to be no link. She died one day after her attack, which coincidentally was the 11th. (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what all that stuff about 9/11 is, but yes, the labeling of her assassination being on the 11th might be inaccurate. Do you have an alternate wording to suggest? --Golbez (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014[edit]

2014: on the streets of Barcelona (Spain) about 1.8 million people gather, according to the general account of the Generalitat de Catalunya, in the biggest demonstration so far in Europe "Volem votar, ara és l'hora" because of the claim of the right to vote for the "Independence of Catalonia". Eduwht (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done We don't seem to have a specific article on this event, to link to - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Vegas[edit]

Right: I’ve taken [Vegas] OFF of this page: as his correct date of birth is on the 5th September, 1970 … !!

9-1-1 emergency number[edit]

It's worth noting that the WTC terrorist attacks were chosen for September 11 because that date spells out 9-1-1, the emergency phone number. That context would be missing for those not in the US and it's important to note. Otherwise it would seem like a completely random date. It does our readers a service to contextualize info. (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If that is true then it doesn't belong here, it belongs on the article for the attacks. But ... it's not true. Do you have a source saying this? --Golbez (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany[edit]

Canada did NOT declare war on Germany on September 11 - it was September 10th — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Deaths of Terrorists[edit]

Suggestion that under "Deaths", the section referring to "2001 casualties" be changed to something like "Deaths during the September 11th Terrorist Attacks." Or take the sub-category out entirely (other pages about days do not include sub categories for deaths or births, for instance. Or if a sub category is required, have two -- one would be for Victims of the September 11th Terrorist Attack" and one for "Perpetrators of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks." Spinfisher (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for deaths occurring as the result of a single incident to be grouped; see, for example, the year and day entries for the day the music died. Grouping as "victims" and "perps" seems a reasonable idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Libya[edit]

11 people died in total; 4 were American and the remaining 7 were Libyans — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


A simple question: Why on earth is the 2001 entry written the way it is? Did somebody look at that and say, "Yeah, that's the important information about that day"? 2602:306:CCDE:8C50:DCF0:BA89:C7A9:2E4D (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I saw the entry about the Taiwanese girl group, and that's what I responded to above. I was under the impression that that was all that this page said about 9/11/01. Regardless, though, I suspect that very few people care that a Taiwanese girl group was formed that day. 2602:306:CCDE:8C50:DCF0:BA89:C7A9:2E4D (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - 1683 - Turkish Conquer of the Europe stopped by a Polish King at Vienna (todays Austria)[edit]

If anything it would be Turkish attempted conquest of Europe stopped at Vienna; but I doubt it will be approved. Quis separabit? 15:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Births and deaths[edit]

In accordance with the guidelines, I've started weeding the Births and Deaths sections of Date articles by removing entries for celebrities with 0-4 articles in other languages. Where possible, these have been transferred to the relevant Year in Topic articles. As well as making the lists more manageable, this will help with the globalization effort. Quis separabit? 20:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016[edit]

Can you please add in Andy Whitfield in the deaths section? This is what it should say:

But do not add his year of birth because sources are in conflict on HIS talk page.

Thank you. (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 15:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you please add to births section

Bob Catley - English vocalist (Magnum) born 11 Sept 1947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


I thought wikipedia was there to publish the truth? Why is the Battle of Vienna not added to this list??? I saw that this has been remarked multiple times, yet wikipedia refuses to add it to the list. So wikipedia is in effect censoring the truth, probably due to political pressure. Or is history subjective according to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubertroll47 (talkcontribs) 10:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Vienna has an article which is linked in September 12 and 750 other Wikipedia articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Battle of Vienna. It must be one of the least effective censorships ever. Often a multi-day event is only listed on the first or last day. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, and according to Battle of Vienna#Battle, the main event happened on the 12th. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bert Anciaux[edit]

Please someone add his 1959 birthday to the list. I may for whatever reason not edit the list. (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)