Talk:September 11 attacks

Should we change the infobox photos?
There was recently a conflict a few weeks ago over the montage in the the infobox. I would like to get everybody’s opinion on the infobox images and if we should change them. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no need to change them Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This issue was resolved the other day. The infobox is back to how it should be. No further changes necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC);
 * The info box is fine as it is. I see no need for any further changes. David J Johnson (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no clear images of an attack in progress.
The closest we have is a blurry still of American Flight 77 before its collision. There is one image that the caption says is United Flight 175, but it's not. It's an image of its explosion.

Is there any possibility that we could use impact footage and isolate a frame from when Flight 175 was within seconds of striking the tower? Hmm1994 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So that there's a clear image of the article's subject. Hmm1994 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the point Slatersteven is trying to make is, "How does that better illustrate the article's subject, compared to what we have now?" There doesn't seem to be any real reason to do this. The article's subject is the attacks as a whole, not any single airliner's impact. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also want to add we know what happened on September 11th. We know both the World Trade Center twin towers were struck. The instant after the impact of United 175 on the South Tower — explosive ball of flame — is sufficient enough. Additionally, as mentioned above, events of September 11th includes more than just the impacts on the World Trade Center. It involves events at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. No change necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction now in place
Due to frequent but sporadic edit warring, I've placed this article under an indefinite "consensus required" restriction, the specific of which are visible in the header here, the editnotice at the article itself, and pasted below for visibility. I ask that regular editors here be watchful for violations and conscientious about making new editors formally aware of this contentious topic. Best practice is to notify people if they've violated the restriction and request a self-revert, rather than immediately seeking a sanction. The restriction: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The infobox images hs been changed without consensus. I just reverted it, but I encourage discussion here. Thanks. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just reverted changes that were made without consensus. Please discuss here. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024
the use of “islamist” in the introduction and in the “attack type” in the overview is subjective, offensive and unnecessary. the information and impact of the attack will remain the same without that label. pointing towards one specific group will not diminish what happened on 9/11 - their islamic religion had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred.

“The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[f] were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. That morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners scheduled to travel from the East Coast to California. The hijackers crashed the first two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, two of the world's five tallest buildings at the time, and aimed the next two flights toward targets in or near Washington, D.C., in an attack on the nation's capital. The third team succeeded in striking the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania during a passenger revolt. The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people, making them the deadliest terrorist attack in history. In response to the attacks, the United States waged the multi-decade, global War on Terror to eliminate hostile groups deemed as terrorist organizations, as well as the foreign governments purported to support them. Conflicts were fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and several other countries, under this justification”.

the impact is exactly the same, and u will not be marginalising people while trying to send the impact across to the next person. Saturnraindrops (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Are you under a new account? — Czello (music) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You do know that "Islamist" and "Islamic" are different, right? Have a look at Islamism if you are not familiar with it. Muslims are not necessarily Islamist. While there are some moderate elements within this broadly political-religious movement, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (and others) represent its more extreme manifestation. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2024
is more commonly used than. 2600:1700:6180:6290:1C26:EFE8:3894:862E (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * September 11 attacks → 9/11
 * Reactions to the September 11 attacks → Reactions to 9/11
 * Motives for the September 11 attacks → Motives for 9/11
 * Planning of the September 11 attacks → Planning of 9/11
 * Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks → Timeline for 9/11
 * Media documentation of the September 11 attacks → Media documentation of 9/11
 * Casualties of the September 11 attacks → Casualties of 9/11
 * Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks → Lists of victims of 9/11
 * U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks → U.S. military response during 9/11
 * Communication during the September 11 attacks → Communication during 9/11
 * U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks → U.S. government response to 9/11
 * Detentions following the September 11 attacks → Detentions following 9/11
 * Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks → Health effects arising from 9/11
 * Economic effects of the September 11 attacks → Economic effects of 9/11
 * Cultural influence of the September 11 attacks → Cultural influence of 9/11
 * List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks → List of cultural references to 9/11
 * Entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → Entertainment affected by 9/11
 * Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks → Airport security repercussions due to 9/11
 * Legal issues related to the September 11 attacks → Legal issues related to 9/11
 * Trials related to the September 11 attacks → Trials related to 9/11
 * This has been discussed again and again, with no consensus to move. See the top of this page and the archives.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I oppose. I read 9/11 as $9/11$. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "9/11" is a colloquial shortening; the formal name is "September 11 attacks", and being an encyclopedia, the formal is more appropriate. As long as the redirect goes here we're good. Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close. This has been discussed previously and no new arguments are being presented here. — Czello (music) 11:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove use of word Islamist in September 11 attacks wiki
I'm proposing removing the word Islamist on ground it is a Loaded language, MOS:RACIST,WP:NPOV. It is currently used in lead paragraph, short description (Islamist terror attacks in the United States).

The word “Islamist” is often considered a loaded word. It carries connotations and implications that vary widely depending on context, audience, and can evoke strong emotions or judgments. Originally, “Islamist” referred to individuals or groups advocating for the implementation of Islamic law and governance based on Islamic principles. However, since September 11 attacks, especially in Western media and political discourse, the term has become associated with extremism and terrorism. This shift has led to a broad and often negative interpretation of the word, conflating peaceful political movements with violent extremism.

The use of “Islamist” can thus be seen as pejorative and can perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims, suggesting that any form of political Islam is inherently radical or violent. This broad-brush approach fails to recognize the diversity within political Islam and the distinction between moderate, political, and extremist elements.

Moreover, the term can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements or parties within Muslim-majority countries that seek to engage in the democratic process while adhering to Islamic values. As a result, the use of “Islamist” requires careful consideration of context and intent to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and contributing to Islamophobia.

The term lacks a precise definition and can be used to describe a broad spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. This ambiguity can lead to overgeneralization and misrepresentation of diverse groups and individuals. The term’s ambiguity further contributes to its loaded nature. For some, Islamist simply denotes a political ideology, comparable to terms like “capitalist” or “socialist.” For others, it implies a threat to secular governance and Western values, which can stoke fear and prejudice. This duality can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations, impacting public opinion and policy.

Using Islamist here can inadvertently contribute to Islamophobia, fostering a monolithic and negative view of Islam and its followers. However, due to its frequent misuse and the heavy baggage it carries, “Islamist” is indeed a loaded word, it must be employed with care requiring careful and context-specific application to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or unjustly maligning individuals and groups. Gsgdd (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you're worried that the perpetrators of 9/11 are tarred with a word "associated with extremism and terrorism", a word that has "often negative interpretation", is "pejorative" and which "can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements". Er...Oppose, obviously. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's what you understood - maybe read it again without prejudice. Ty Gsgdd (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have given greater thought to your proposal before publication. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the concern is tarring Islamists in general unjustly. An Islamist is merely someone who abides by one of any manner of political Islam. Turkey's government is Islamist. That term alone does not imply political extremism, militancy, or any of the other traits. Since the "war on terror", it is however true that false opprobrium has been foisted on the term "Islamist", with naive and ignorant commentators using it interchangeably with terms like "jihadist". Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * correct. The attacks on September 11, were carried out by the extremist group al-Qaeda, which is driven by a specific radical interpretation of Islam. The term "Islamism" broadly refers to political movements that seek to implement Islamic law and principles in governance. While not all forms of Islamism endorse violence, the ideology behind al-Qaeda is a militant form of Islamism that promotes jihadist terrorism. Currently i think the use of Islamist in short desc and lead violates wiki NPOV.
 * The motivation behind the 9/11 attacks was complex and rooted in a variety of factors, including geopolitical grievances, a reaction against U.S. foreign policy, and an extremist worldview that justified the use of violence to achieve its aims. It is important to distinguish between Islam as a religion and the specific radical ideologies that drove the 9/11 attackers. It should not be shortened just to Islamist without context Gsgdd (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's nothing unjust about it. Islamists are little different than Dominionists or Zionists when it comes down to it, and Wikipedia doesn't sugarcoat those ideologies. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather than call out the people who commit acts of violence, you propose not identifying these people in hopes that the next terrorist is not identified. I think the kkk and white men werena target for a while. I hear no mention of re-branding the kkk 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Briefly, why is this an RFC? Has it been discussed before? If not, perhaps remove the RFC template and just have a normal discussion. On the merits, yes, Al-Qaeda is more specifically and aptly a "jihadist" organization, which is much more specific than mere "Islamist", which just means anyone inclined to political Islam. Other applicable terms could be militant Islamist or Islamic extremist, but "jihadist" more or less covers all of those bases, so job done! Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Job not done. Multiple RS refer to the attackers as Islamist. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, but we don't want just what any old multiple RS say. We want what the best in-depth analysis of Al-Qaeda now state. But in any case, why wouldn't you want to specify that it was a specifically militant Islamist or jihadist attack? What is wrong with greater specificity? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a question of WP:DUE. I think "jihadist" is less used than "Islamist" and I doubt that "islamist" generally requires further specificity in the context of 9/11. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because its widely used in RS doesn't mean its okay. After 9/11 emotions were high - and western media used the word negatively and continues to do since. Thats why i think it is  loaded word, and MOS:RACIST Im also do not support using militant Islamist. It still do not address my concerns. It just adding word militant before Islamist. Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. "because it's widely used in RS" is exactly why it's ok in Wikipedia. Your personal objections to the word are irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "militant Islamist" clarifies that violent "militant Islamism" is beyond the general concept of Islamism, just as a "political extremist" is something beyond a normal political actor. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this? Instead of "Islamist suicide terrorist attack", where "suicide terrorist attack" is a piped link to just "suicide attack", we un-pipe that link, and clarify that it's an Islamist terrorist suicide attack? Same words. Better order. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also advocating for ending the association of religion with terrorism. When a Christian commits an act of terrorism, we do not label it as “Christian terrorism,” nor do we call it a “Hindu terrorism” when a Hindu does the same. Millions of people read Wikipedia, and we should stop promoting Islamophobia and religious hatred. Islamism isnt the cause of 9/11. that's what the article is saying. Gsgdd (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This comes down to sources. In any case, the argument for what you suggest would need to be made at Islamic terrorism, not here, if at all. Incidentally, Hindu terrorism does exist as a page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist or to Islam in lead paragraph and short description without context and explanation. This isnt about the concept of Islamic terrorism which can exist independently Gsgdd (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. That's exactly what the RS do associate it with. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well? Gsgdd (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It's fundamental to being a Wikipedia editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * yes - did you read Verifiability,_not_truth Gsgdd (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I first read it in about 2010. Why? It's quite ironic for you to raise it which makes me think you haven't understood it, or understood any of the fundamentals of our approach to editing. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * i think, there is more to it than you think. for eg. it say "In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible"
 * It says "This word has multiple meanings, and the relevant one is "The point at which an action is triggered, especially a lower limit." This means the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability" it means to me, that is not the right standard, just the minimum
 * It also talk about Truth being subjective. "Here we prioritize facts over subjective truths." Gsgdd (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your grabbing at tiny out of context straws to ignore what that essay is shouting out you. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gsgdd: You could have left my middle ground edit in place while continuing to discuss. You're really not building a consensus coalition here. But as you will: now "Islamist" is back in place. Great result all round. Good job. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323 i appreciate your discussions. But your edit doesn't address my concern. It should stay in place - until i can get more eyes from neutral editors. Changing it right now, may prevent editors from understanding my points. Gsgdd (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really, because you could still keep objecting to the word Islamist even after me edit, which incidentally was also about resolving a piping issue, which you have now re-crapped up again. You are unlikely to gain consensus to remove any mention of anything related to Islamic ideology when the perpetrators here were motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources are also not with you. You have to separate what you want from what is realistic based on sources and policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to try. It may be okay to explain it with context. What's not okay is blindly calling Sept 11 attack as Islamist. Short in description reads Islamist terror attacks in the United States. Are you saying this is inline with wiki policies ? Gsgdd (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist I mean... yes. Because it clearly is associated. — Czello (music) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about your own misconceptions principally. See the articles on Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Already replied it above Gsgdd (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * a Hindu committing a terrorist attack? You are going to bring in Hindu's . When was the last time a Christian group attacked a county? Violently? I get handing out bibles can be seen as attack. Islam does not like respect other religions. There in lies the problem. 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * what about this
 * The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11, were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by extremist Islamist group al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. Gsgdd (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with that - although the target article's title ("Islamic terrorism") is somewhat dubious in my view. But "Islamist terrorist suicide attack" in this article works for me. 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry - i dint realize we needed to discuss first before opening rfc. removed RFC for now Gsgdd (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This really should be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. Jessintime (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did. Gsgdd reverted me, so let's do this.
 * This is a non-starter of a proposal, and Gsgdd is simply trying to right great wrongs, which is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt social change, and should not be. The arguments that RS are "wrong" and therefore should be ignored is not going to be of any use on Wikipedia.
 * Further, casually throwing around the term racism is a dangerous game, and one I believe will blow up in your face. Gsgdd, I strongly suggest you step back and reconsider your approach. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already communicated, i removed the RFC tag shortly after posting it. It need not be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. It no longer applies Gsgdd (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the need for caution around these labels, specifically given the way they are misapplied, I think it is appropriate to describe AQ as Islamist. This doesn't change the fact there are peaceful Islamist movements, but your proposal is like saying we shouldn't call Hitler "right-wing" because there are plenty of non-fascist right-wingers. Yr Enw (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Words has many meaning. I think Islamist is the wrong word. We label al qaeda as jihadist terrorist group or something specific, rather than labeling 9/11 as a islamist attack. It just wrong. that's the truth i believe. Gsgdd (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jihadist is a good alternative, but it doesn’t make Islamist wrong. I guess the best approach is always reflecting what sources use the most (preferably academic, bc journalistic sources can indeed be very irresponsible and sloppy in how they use these terms) Yr Enw (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * RS say it was, the US government says it was, so we say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The U.S. government refers to the attacks as ‘Islamist suicide terrorist attacks,’ so RS follows suit. However, my point is that the term Islamist is being used out of context and potentially violates WP:NPOV. It wasn’t Islamist that caused 9/11, but rather the extremist group al-Qaeda, which practices jihadist terrorism. Therefore, it would be clearer and more accurate to specify this in the lead, rather than using a term with multiple meanings Gsgdd (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No there is no misunderstanding, their goal was not "al-Qaeda" not their motivation or agenda, it was Islamist. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How the hell is it used out of context? —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you use an AI to write this? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close this discussion. This has been discussed before and I'm very suspicious that OP is a sock of given that they got blocked over the same debate (and potentially socked again in another discussion on the same topic). — Czello (music) 15:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE CHANGE and I agree with @Czello I believe this is a banned user using a sock puppet account to further push their agenda against using Islamist when referring to who carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks. I also want to point out that Islamist is the extremist view of Islam that's not followed by mainstream Muslims. There should be a clear indication of this on Wikipedia to silence this discussion once and for all. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That part is not true. Islamism is just an "ism" for political Islam, and you get non-militant, non-extremist Islamists. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)