Talk:September 11 attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Former featured article September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article September 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted
January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
June 19, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
July 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
July 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
August 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
August 30, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted
September 25, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted
May 24, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
July 13, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


"... tragedy that was Afghanistan..."?!!![edit]

@David J Johnson:- Mr. Johnson, you are a native speaker of English language, don't you think this sentence has a problem? "In a speech by the Nizari Ismaili Imam at the Nobel Institute in 2005, Aga Khan IV stated that the "9/11 attack on the United States was a direct consequence of the international community ignoring the human tragedy that was Afghanistan at that time".". Human tragedy that was Afghanistan? What does it mean? I think that is wrong or incomplete translation or at least, something is wrong about this. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reads perfectly OK for me. David J Johnson (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that something sounds wrong with it. Perhaps he meant something along the lines of the tragedy that was within Afghanistan and not human life itself and it just doesn't translate well. Aprilskye (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the sentence and that is how it is written in the reference so nothing for us to do anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think what was meant by that comment refers to United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, in opposition to Russia, which eventually led to the formation of a terror network. However, for obvious politically rhetorical reasons, those countries are not to be named, 'under punishment of democracy' (or wikipedia, take your pick). (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This comment was now removed twice, under false pretense. In both cases, the admins have military affiliations; breach of trust, inherent bias and abuse of power. (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Then make specific suggestions for improvement rather than using this page as a platform for griping about Wikipedia and casting silly aspersions at other editors.Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I just want to add my complete support for the comments made by Acroterion above. This IP seems not to grasp that the Talk page is for improvements to the article and not for soapboxing or WP:POV. No doubt I will be added to the "bias", "breach of trust", "abuse of power" comments etc; none of which is true. David J Johnson (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I want to know what our military affiliations are - and why they would be bad if they existed. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know the heights of ridicule to which this line of reasoning will reach. Bias on wiki, doesn't exist, right? I wasn't even aware that Wiki still had a reputation to uphold. That died when admins/mods became nationalist fundamentalists several years ago. If you have an issue with me calling Wiki out on that, I see why you'd consider it soapbox, but that does not disqualify the rest of the comment, which was removed under false pretense. Also, admins chiming in with their opinions don't make them more 'credible', only more herd oriented. (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Although I have to question that policy, since removing criticism of Wiki or their staff is technically white-washing, astroturfing or manufacture of consent, suppression of dissent, as is the manufacture of 'credibility'. (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
So, do you have concrete suggestions for improving the article, or are you here to complain about the encyclopedia and its editors? I'm acting here as an ordinary editor, and David J. Johnson isn't an administrator, and neither of us are "staff." Either use this page as it is intended, to provide concrete suggestions for article improvement, or stop using it as a platform for griping. I don't see much evidence so far that my initial removal per WP:NOTFORUM was incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it isn't immediately clear to you, inb4; "refers to United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, in opposition to Russia, which eventually led to the formation of a terror network." You can even reference you own page on the war in Afghanistan for that. (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The thread is about "human tragedy that was Afghanistan" comment and one editor's concern that it is unclear. We all seem to have interpreted it the same way, leaving aside your side comments about other participants. Can you provide an external source that renders the intent of the comment more clearly? Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The original source of that comment is incomplete, as was mentioned previously, so it's disingenuous to say there is consensus of interpretation. In fact, in its current form, it eludes any form of interpretation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the original source. That will be my last comment in regards to this farce - Vedrai! Enn'le! (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Invasion of Afghanistan in lead[edit]

The lead currently states:

The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda.

Seems like it would be more precise to say "... the Taliban, which had failed to comply with US demands to extradite Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan." 2601:644:1:B7CB:813D:7883:7F41:7BC6 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018[edit]

were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center(should be centre) Turdmun (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No,this is correct use of US English. See WP:ENGVAR. David J Johnson (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Also World Trade "Center" is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 13:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

3,008 people actually died from direct attack.[edit]

IP range blocked for disruptive editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12 homeless unidentified people were not listed on any tally. 329 people have died from lung damage do to asbestos related exposure from the attack as of December 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:1824:95A6:66D1:14BA (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Might I ask where you're getting this information from? -- ChamithN (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I was going to ask the same question. Where's the source?--JOJ Hutton 13:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is blocked from posting information by unknown people who have wrong information. 3,008 is the final total . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:DB7:6186:AD7F:28 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

edit needed - references out of date information[edit]

No --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section of the article that reads, " 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.[298] " is out of date - it references an article written in 2011. As of now (5/2018), there are over 2,900 architects and engineers who've signed a position with the group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which questions the government's report on the reasons for the collapses of the buildings and calls for an independent investigation. The line might better be changed to read, " 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena. A growing number of engineers scientists and architects have indicated their belief in a need for an independent, comprehensive investigation into the events surrounding 9/11. [1]

According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, that petition had 2100 signatures in 2013. I wouldn't say that an increase of 800 signatures in five years is significant enough to mention in this article. Besides, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is already mentioned at 9/11 conspiracy theories. clpo13(talk) 06:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it could simply be "A number of engineers scientists and architects have indicated their belief in a need for an independent, comprehensive investigation into the events surrounding 9/11. "
It is not the case that there is a "lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians", though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelaus (talkcontribs) 06:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That is technically true, though WP:NPOV says that Wikipedia articles should represent all significant viewpoints. Compared to the millions of engineers[2] and architects in the US, ~3000 is not very much at all. You might want to look back through the talk page archives (linked at the top of this page) because this discussion has likely happened a few times before. clpo13(talk) 07:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You have to be careful with professional registrations, since many people are licensed in more than one place - I'm licensed in seven states - so the numbers I quoted are for "resident licenses" as opposed to reciprocal licenses in places outside the state of residence. I think the BLS statistics are for everybody described as an engineer or architect, not strictly those with licenses. Since AE911 has made a practice of trading on licensure as a marker of asserted expertise, I chose the narrowest definitions. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; I'll remember that for future reference. clpo13(talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There's roughly 300,000 Mechanical Engineers, 300,000 Civil Engineers, and about 100,000 Architects in the US. As petitions usually go, not everyone who holds a given viewpoint will sign a petition that supports that viewpoint, especially if it involves their professional reputation. So the Amazon review statistic rule of thumb could be put into place here - every review equates to about 30 purchases. If this were the case here, there could be upwards of 90,000 Engineers and architects who would support a new investigation, which works out to about 13%. In any case, it doesn't represents the truth of the situation to continue to say there is a "lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians". Nickelaus (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
This talkpage is for article improvement, not as a platform for the promotion of a fringe group. This theme of "3000 professionals" that keeps coming up: out of 450,000 [3] licensed engineers and 105,000 architects [4] in the US, you can pretty reliably get maybe one percent of them (or anybody else) to sign onto just about anything. 0.5405% is meaningless.:On the topic of professional views in general, see here: [5] [6]. You're using a complete guestimate to inflate the potential scope of a fringe pressure group with no professional credibility. Licensure is a baseline qualification, it does not endow the holder with expertise, any more than passing the bar exam makes one a Supreme Court justiceAcroterion (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Every profession has a few nutcases!--MONGO 16:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is definitely a numbers game that can be played and the numbers will always come out differently depending on your point of view. This language of 'fringe group' is kind of inflammatory as it implies radical views. This is not the case here as you'd see if you were to check the profiles of the professionals in their list and actually note the type of careful objective analysis and legitimate questions that are raised from that group. Is Wikipedia only meant to represent comfortable, majority viewpoints, or to represent reality in all its complexity and subtlety? Galileo's championing of the heliocentric model comes to mind here - at that time it was not in vogue politically or in the view of the church to agree with the heliocentric model even though it turned out to be true. If intellectual honesty is the objective, we ought to be willing shelf our biases and report the state of things objectively. Nickelaus (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Calling a group of lunatic charlatans "fringe" is not radical.--MONGO 18:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia only meant to represent comfortable, majority viewpoints Well, yes. Non-mainstream views may be notable in their own right (see WP:NFRINGE), but Wikipedia should not make them seem more widely accepted than they actually are, which even a passing mention could do (there have been many heated debates about whether YEC should be mentioned at all in age of the Earth). For instance, the Earth article does not devote any space to the modern-day belief that the earth is flat, though modern flat Earth societies are notable enough to have their own article. Also note that when Wikipedians refer to something as "fringe", it should (ideally) be taken to mean only that it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", not necessarily that its adherents are crackpots. clpo13(talk) 19:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
So, if Wikipedia were around in Galileo's time, would it be correct for an article discussing 'Earth's place in the cosmos' to avoid mentioning scientists who thought that the Earth traveled around the sun, since this was against the comfortable, majority viewpoint?Nickelaus (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I see we've reached the inevitable citation of Galileo in defense of a fringe POV. Wikipedia reflects mainstream points of view as policy, and explicitly calls out conspiracy theories as such when they are considered to be fringe points of view in mainstream journalism and academic coverage. If the Truth is eventually revealed in mainstream publications, Wikipedia will be revised to reflect the new consensus. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You probably keep hearing this Galileo citation because it is a really good analogy to the problem with Wikipedia. What I've heard here is, basically, even if something is true, you'll never read about it on Wikipedia until the 'mainline' sources bless it as true. Who gets to say which sources qualifies qualify as mainline and what is legitimate? How do we reconcile the fact that almost all mainstream news sources editorialize news according to a pre-established viewpoint and that academia only requires 'consensus' status for ideas to be considered scientific fact (Chrichton's paper on the flawed idea of consensus science comes to mind, here)?
It's good that we get this out in the open, though: Wikipedia is essentially an executive report of what the majority of mainline academia and media reports as true, regardless of whether that flies in the face of reality. Nickelaus (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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


These videos exist:

is it appropriate to add any of these videos to this article with start times at particular timecode of the video? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of these are decent. Some have snippets of people that jumped out of the buildings. I glance through them and am waiting to see what others think.--MONGO 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined against including them -- I think we already have plenty of photos and they are more reader accessible and just as expressive. Don't see a strong reason why they shouldn't be included either though.. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)