Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 47

"Terrorists" vs "Operatives", "Members"?
See WP:TERRORIST. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the second sentence, why can't we just say "19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda..."? // Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally tend to favour using fewer words as long as WP:AVOID is satisfied, but yeah, that also works. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Members of? RxS (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like "members of". al-Qaeda isn't Blockbuster, they don't issue cards.  As nebulous as the organization is, I think "affiliated" just about captures the relationship.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To me affiliated sounds like they are sub-contractors. They certainly had some close relationship. I think that to conduct such an operation, the hijackers had to be closely enough related to al-Qaeda that to say they were members isn't unreasonable. Don't need "cards" to be a member of something. RxS (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And just another note, a nebulous organization doesn't come to mind when thinking about a group pulling off an operation like these attacks. RxS (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the did, in fact, prove to be blockbusters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh COME on. We've had this debate so many times before. Haven't you people looked in the archives? WP:TERRORIST is not a rule, it's a suggestion. They are terrorists in every sense of the word. Calling them anything but is pushing POV. I'm reverting this edit, and I'll fight this as hard as I have to. WP:DUCK. --Tarage (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And Duck is an essay not policy terrorist is POV it is simple have you not heard one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. BigDunc  Talk 11:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh what, WP:TERRORIST is policy now, but WP:DUCK isn't? I call bullshit. --Tarage (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck, are you for real? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you the same thing bub. --Tarage (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Tarage. Calling them anything other than terrorists would be a POV. AdjustShift (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I forgot NPOV doesn't exist on this article, silly me and I thought NPOV was a core policy. BigDunc  Talk 18:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh cry more. NPOV is a core policy, but we listen to RS. RS calls them terrorists, so they are terrorists. Stop pushing POV. --Tarage (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See this from last year. While consensus can change, what hasn't changed is that reliable sources call them terrorists and so do we. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it not attributed in the article text instead of stating it as fact, not many people would consider that it wasn't a terrorist attack but it is still a pejorative term and inherently not neutral. BigDunc  Talk 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Several of the references in this article call them terrorists. Then again, you already knew that because you took the time to read the references before commenting. And terrorist is no more pejorative than murderer. That's what they are, that's what sources call them, therefore that's what we call them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and took a look at our Al-Qaeda article. In its lede, it enumerates some organizations that define them as terrorists. I’d be comfortable with the use of the term here as long as it’s sourced. The course of action I have in mind is to lift that passage’s citations, group them into one reference here, and tack it onto the term “terrorist” if we’re going to use it in the lede. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy says that we present content as evidenced by reliable sources. The word "terrorist" is a characterization made by reliable sources, it is thus something that the reliable sources added to the facts. As an encylopedia, we should stick to the facts as evidenced by the sources. (The issue is more evident when we think of opinion pieces, where opinions and facts are so intertwined that it's often difficult to determine the actual facts, thus opinion pieces are generally considered to be less useful sources.) Cs32en  02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cs32en, this was your edit in the lead section. The lead section of an article should explain things in simple words. There is no need to change the lead section. If anyone thinks differently, please discuss here first. AdjustShift (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense. If the whole encylopedia followed from your logic, we would have to get rid of any material containing critical analyses of our subjects. You are completely wrong. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not need to get rid of opinions. We should attribute notable opinions to those people or institutions that express them. This is the reason why we have a guideline that explains how to avoid editorializing, and why we should be especially careful when using opinion pieces as sources. Cs32en  12:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want the whole encyclopedia to follow my logic, and I also don't want to get rid of any material containing critical analyses of our subjects. Cs32en's edit was followed by A Quest For Knowledge's edit. The lead section of the article is ok; instead of needlessly arguing about the lead section, we should concentrate on other parts of the article so that we can bring the 9/11 article to featured article. How am I completely wrong? AdjustShift (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My reply wasn't to you, it was to Cs32en. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, thanks for clarifying. AdjustShift (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FA? In my opinion this is not even a GA as it fails 4 and 5 of the criteria for a GA so if FA is what you are loking for then a whole lot more work needs to get done on this article. BigDunc  Talk 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It fails criterion number four only in the minds of the delusional and the only reason it might fail criterion five is because you and your ilk have decided to edit war in an attempt to sabotage the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm willing to say, don't feed the trolls. This is all he is doing now, and it's pathetic. Good Faith be damned, this is just pathetic. --Tarage (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this when everyone stands up, thumps their chest and chant "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!"?? Arn't we supposed to be writing a neutral POV encyclopedia or have I just stepped into US national wikipedia as opposed to English language wikipedia.
 * Maybe some of my American cousins need to check their rage over 9/11 at the door and put on their wikipedians hat! I find some of the actions of some editors here, most notably Tarage and AdjustShift pretty embarassing to say the least. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In a neutral POV encyclopedia, we call terrorists terrorists. AdjustShift (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AdjustShift are you honestly saying that terrorist is a neutral term? BigDunc  Talk 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling those 19 terrorists anything other than terrorists would be a POV. AdjustShift (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats not what I asked you, is terrorist neutral or is it a pejorative term? BigDunc  Talk 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys must have a look at this former terrorists talk page []...talk about WP:Duck? --De Unionist (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a terrorist may or may not be neutral, but in this particular case, calling those 19 terrorists anything other than terrorists would be a POV. AdjustShift (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are refusing to answer my question I thought an admin would at least explain themselves instead of because they are. BigDunc  Talk 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BigDunc, you didn't read my response carefully. Calling someone a terrorist may or may not be neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it could be neutral because I honestly can't see it. BigDunc  Talk 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When 19 people hijack commercial passenger jet airliners, and intentionally crashed them into buildings to kill innocent people, we call those 19 people "terrorists". Calling those 19 people "terrorists" is neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That is not an explanation of how it is neutral. I can't get into the minds of the people who carried out these attacks or their supporters but I assume they believe that they were fighting a war and they use that as justification for their acts. So when we label people terrorists we are making a judgement As David Spaull, then-Editor of World Service News wrote in 1988:

"Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned - we should still avoid the word. In the first place, our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels... BigDunc  Talk 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolute gobbly-gook, that's the whole point of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia, a source of info and facts, not a few guesses so that individuals can create their own hypothesis. --De Unionist (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WE are making no such judgment. Reliable Sources are. The weight of the number of sources calling these people terrorists vastly outweighs sources calling them anything but. We don't need to say "some say" because nearly ALL say. Just as we don't say "some believe the world is round", calling them terrorists is FAR from POV. As AdjustShift keeps reminding you, calling them anything BUT terrorists is POV. Hell, calling them terrorists may not be 100% NPOV, but of all the possible options, it is the MOST NPOV. Now drop it already. It isn't going to change. The majority AND RS are against you. Keep it up and I'll request a topic ban. This has reached the point of not being funny anymore. --Tarage (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (In response to the reverts)And get thicker skin apparently. If you think saying someone has a thick skull is a horrible uncalled for personal attack... you need to get out more Dunc. Weren't you told to lighten up already when you made that silly ANI? I guess I should have expected this... --Tarage (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you whole heartedly mate, hidden agenda's are apparent here and double standards. --De Unionist (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed my link above (due to an editor with a WP:NPOV deleting it) I repeat it now. "You guys must have a look at this former terrorists talk page []...talk about WP:Duck? Can we assume one standard across Wikipedia and not one rule for Al-Qaeda and another for the PIRA?" --De Unionist (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), there aren't concrete 'rules' that say what you are talking about. WP:DUCK is a suggestion, just as WP:TERRORIST is. It's up to the editors working on said article to come to a consensus based on what reliable sources say. --Tarage (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The assignation "terrorist" should everywhere and always be prohibited on Wiki as it is a pejorative phrase - period. It is always POV. Not WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me what? This is just your opinion right? I assume you are not asserting that Wikipedia should be censored. Either way, you are wrong, and we are still going to use the word, because the Reliable Sources overwhelmingly do. --Tarage (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Censorship does happen, atleast here on this article you are allowed open debate about the term. On the article mentioned by De Unionist earlier such debate it seems is not allowed and gets reverted despite the fact its about a self declared former leader of a terrorist organisation.
 * It is very sad today that some people think its not neutral to describe a terrorist as a terrorist. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Suicide vs. Homicide attack
The latter is a term preferred by Bill O'Reilly types, and it's misleading. Tim McVeigh's was a homicide attack. 9/11 was a suicide attack. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that it probably was the intent of the hijackers to take their own lives, it was not the main goal. The goal was to cause as much damage and loss of life as possible. Both terms are correct, but one was more intended than the other. Just because Bill O'Reilly types use it does not make it less correct. --Tarage (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, that's what a suicide attack is: the attacker ends his/her own life with the intent of doing maximum damage to others. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, "homicide attack" sounds as if they wanted to kill specific individuals. Describing the attacks as "suicide attacks" leads the reader to ask "How did they kill themselves?", "How many attackers died?" etc.; these are not the most relevant aspects of the events. It's probably best just to call them "attacks". Cs32en  13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a homicide attack is (other than a neologism, of course). Note that this term redirects to suicide attack. A suicide attack is an attack intended to kill others and inflict widespread damage in the knowledge that oneself will die in the process.
 * So much for original research / citing Wikipedia. The question we ought to be asking is, what do the sources say?  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Few reliable sources call the attacks "suicide attacks" or "homicide attacks". So, the only justification for using "suicide" or "homicide" in the lead sentence would be to consolidate information from the article's body anyway (we are not dealing with a name here, but with a description). I do not see a valid reason to consolidate the information in this way (as explained above). Cs32en  14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill O'Reilly started using the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber" in reference to middle east suicide bombings, as a kind of right-wing political correctness, apparently because he thought "suicide bomber" somehow glorified the bomber. It apparently did not occur to him that any kind of terrorist bombing is a "homicide bombing", whether the perpetrator dies or whether he runs away like McVeigh did. But I don't think the 9/11 attacks have been typically emphasized as "suicide attacks", even though they obviously were. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The noun "attack" itself implies the attackers wanted to kill people. The adjective "suicide" means that the attackers are so desperate to kill people that they're willing to die themselves to accomplish their goal of killing their victims.  IOW, "homicide attack" is redundant.  Do we say that in WWII that the Nazi's "homicide attacked" Poland or that the Japanese "homicide attacked" Pearl Harbor?  No.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general. It's worth pointing out, though, that some attacks are strategic rather than homicidal, such as bombing oil reserves and such stuff as that, which a fair amount of the Allied bombing raids in WWII were. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly opposed the use of the term homicide attack. It's not at all a term used in academic circles or mainstream media sources.  I imagine only a tiny proportion of the sources used in this article make reference to the term.  Regardless of whether homicide or suicide makes more sense to us, arguing based on intent and calling it something our sources don't violates any number of policies.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think many sources call it a "homicide attack". The question is whether to say "suicide attack" or simply "attack". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I think that "terrorist attack" is the most commonly used phrase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course why go for a neutal wording the terrorists yeah way to uphold NPOV. BigDunc  Talk 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Terrorist attack" is political, and I don't think all that many sources emphasize that, but I could be wrong. Actually, I think more people simply call the event "9/11" (as in "nine-eleven") than anything else. Which is probably why no one references the emergency phone number as "nine-eleven" anymore - it's "nine-one-one". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not political, it's cited. Reliable Sources around the world call it a series or terrorist attacks. Calling it anything but is inserting POV. We've HAD this debate before. Check the archives. Please stop pushing POV... --Tarage (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's hard to find a source, reliable or not, which doesn't call it a terrorist attack. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Qaeda 'Terrorist' label is not justified.
There is no justification for using the label 'terrorist' in this article as it is contrary to WP:Terrorist. Has Osama bin Laden stated that he is a terrorist or that his organisation is a terrorist organisation...I think not. There has to be continuity and uniformity between articles. Calling an organisation or an individual a terrorist in one and a member or a paramilitary in another is simply nonsense. Opinions contrary to WP:TE should not be promoted. --De Unionist (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly do the rest of us a favor and take a look at the topic section immediately above this one? Or, perhaps, peruse the archives for the dozens of other places this exact topic has come up and been dismissed? Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The United Nations has said so, whether OBL will fess up to it or not. The man who murdered the military recruiter in Arkansas may have said he doesn't view himself as a murderer, but that does not change the fact that he is one - and the same principle applies here. Consensus has not changed, and no new arguments have been presented in favor of such a change. Before lecturing us on tendentious editing, I would ask that you please look closely at what you are doing here and ask yourself what better matches the description. »S0CO ( talk 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we have to explain each and everything to some editors who are posting here. Many reliable sources have called Al Qaeda a terrorist organization. Please read the basic policies of the English-language Wikipedia before posting here. See WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:Consensus. Read the archives of this talk page, and Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. AdjustShift (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's ridiculous to think that in an article on the worst terrorist attack of all time, we can't use the word 'terrorist'.  I'm currently watching Inside 9/11, a documentary by National Geographic (which is a WP:RS) and they don't shy away from using the word 'terrorist'.  Neither should we.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK...now that we have established the preamble lets look at the consensus. Are you saying that it is ok to label poor old Osama Bin Laden with the terrorist label but not any other terrorists and former terrorists who just happen to not have attacked the USA? Is it only terrorists and terrorist organisations that have attacked the USA and US interests that can be labelled such? --De Unionist (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)::
 * and btw, I wouldn't consider this to be the worst terrorist attack of all time anyway, this is simply your WP:POV --De Unionist (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you take issue with other articles using (or not using) the term, then I suggest you pose this question there, not here. This talk page is for discussion of this article, and this article only. If we've established that the use of the term is justified in this context, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. »S0CO ( talk 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * De Unionist, you are *still* not getting it. There are plenty of reliable sources (see WP:RS) that call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist. Original research is not allowed on WP. If you want to insert something, you have to provide a reliable source. We call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist because plenty of reliable sources call him a terrorist. AdjustShift (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and plenty of reliable sources have referred to Nelson Mandela and Martin McGuinness as terrorists but they are not labelled such here for Political reasons...this cannot be correct and makes a mockery of the Wikipedia ethos. --De Unionist (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point out to one reliable source which calls Nelson Mandela a terrorist? De Unionist, we don’t allow white supremacists to control articles here on en.wikipedia. Those so called "reliable sources" which call Nelson Mandela a terrorist are actually fringe sources. See WP:FRINGE. Your arguments are completely irrelevant to this article. Please comment on the ways we can ameliorate the 9/11 article; if you keep on making needless comments, your comments will be erased from this talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those two articles are irrelevant to this one. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it every time an editor doesn't get their way, they claim their issue makes Wikipedia somehow horrible? --Tarage (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No they are not, if it is one rule for the US and another for everyone else, what sort of a message does that send out. We are talking about policy here, not specifics. --De Unionist (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it up with those articles. This isn't changing. You are wasting your time here. WP:Terrorist is a SUGGESTION, not a RULE. --Tarage (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways, they are either designated terrorist throughout Wikipedia projects or they aren't. --De Unionist (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't designate anyone or thing. BigDunc  Talk 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread is the result of a editor trying to make a point they have edit warred to add terrorist to other articles and here seem to be pushing for its removal. BigDunc Talk 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, present reliable sources to back each other's arguments. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this in this talkpage’s header (in the FAQ section): "Words to avoid states very clearly in the beginning that 'there is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article'. That being said, 'terrorism' is a word that requires special attention when used in Wikipedia. The major contributors have arrived at the consensus, after several lengthy debates, that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks." — NRen2k5 (TALK), 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence why people should actually read the FAQ, instead of ignoring it's existence. This is why we call them Terrorists. No further debate is needed. --Tarage (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to remind people of its existance. I had forgotten.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said; the term "terrorist" is everywhere and always pejorative POV; totally inconsistent with WP:NPOV. We would hardly sanction the use of the "scum" to describe a person or group, even though some of us may feel that, for example, the US Army in Falluja merit the term. No debate needed. Sarah777 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right about one thing, no matter who or where you are, someone is pretty sure you're scum. But you're wrong about everything else, our guidelines have room for the use of terrorist in some cases and this is one of them. Wait, one more thing you're right about...there is no need for debate on this issue. There's nothing new here, just the same old, tired POV pushing. RxS (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. It is the folk who insist on inserting blatantly propagandistic pejorative terms into the article who are pushing POV in clear breach of WP:NPOV. This fails the scum test. No debate required. Sarah777 (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And to get back to the point made above by "DeUnionist"; he (correctly) points out that the pro-US political views of the majority of editors on this article has allowed them to use strength of numbers to ditch WP:NPOV when it comes to 9/11. So why can't the British majority across the Atlantic similarly impose their POV on Northern Ireland related articles? He has a very good point. But I would argue that the applying the term as if it is a factual description, rather than scum variant, should be outlawed in BOTH cases in accordance with WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, the allowing of the term in this article is a cancer attacking WP:NPOV. Read the article on "Terrorism" - it reads like a Pentagon hand-out. Endless "reliable sources" - people in the US/Western/Security/military establishment - presented to back up the most bizarre statements. And it is feeding out from this article; to justify the use here, editors tweak a host of other articles to support their position. Time to call a halt before Wiki ends up with the editorial "balance" of Newsweek. Sarah777 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said Sarah, I couldn't have put it better myself. I wonder why no-one else bothered to point the way to the FAQ section. Could it be that like myself, they weren't aware of it? --De Unionist (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough. You have said nothing new for the past week, cited no reliable sources, and continued to attempt to use this article against another article that you both seem to have far more interest in. We will not be changing this term because you two wish to soapbox. This is your last warning. Either come back with reliable sources, a coherent and new argument, or leave. This is not the place for your rants, soapboxing, or other general nonsense. This has gone on long enough. --Tarage (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah777, your rant is not going to help anybody. There are plenty of reliable sources that call those 19 people terrorists. Calling them anything other than terrorists would be a POV. This sort of discussion isn't going to ameliorate the 9/11 article. There is no reason to continue this discussion. I'm closing this discussion; if certain editors don't stop their POV pushing campaign, they may be reported to ANI. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

where's the see also section here
most other articles have it. 93.86.91.184 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We had one once, but it drew more controversy than it was worth. I would recommend checking out the links in the templates at the bottom of the article. They serve the same purpose while staying on topic at the same time. »S0CO ( talk 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't we can the section because all of the links we had in it were already linked throughout the article? Too lazy to look through the archives right now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping News Off Wikipedia
So, this page has been locked for the past eight years. Any relation to this? 24.209.227.186 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is locked to prevent anonymous editors from vandalizing the pages. This has been a huge problem every time we remove the locks, so they are pretty much here to stay. However, this does not stop a user from registering an account. The lock does not prevent registered editors from editing in any way. In fact, it is encouraged. At the very least, it allows us to keep track of the edits, and when necessary, prevent further vandalism from sock puppet accounts and trolls. --Tarage (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to what the Right Honourable Gentleman (that is your title, right?) writes, any IP can propose an edit on this talk page and a registered user may add that for him/her following any further discussion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same old story, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others! --De Unionist (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me... what? --Tarage (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the link you have since inserted... which is, in fact, the SAME link the origonal posted posted... I have to again ask the question "What?" Either make an argument, or get off the soapbox. --Tarage (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Long-term effects
It would seem to me that the effect of the attacks on the domestic politics and foreign policy of the United States dwarfs the economic and health effects. The impact on the Muslim world, and the changes in the relationship between Western and Islamic cultures are also very significant and neglected by the "Long-term effects" section of this article. Skomorokh  16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Find us some sources? Then again, it may not be the place for something lengthy. Should we perhaps have an article about 'The effects of 9/11'? --Tarage (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that might be a good idea. Excellent suggestion Tarage. I agree that adding further consideration of the long-term effects of 9/11 on the Muslim world, and the changes in the relationship between Western and Islamic cultures might be too meaty for a section in this current article. Sarah777 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * RS rules the roost here, so unless we get some, no new article/section. --Tarage (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should this page decide whether there are other articles? Surely such an article would have it's own  talk page? Sarah777 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it would be branching from THIS article, and it hasn't even been created yet, it still falls here to talk about it. --Tarage (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it seems to me clear that in the section Long-term effects the two subsections Economic aftermath and Health effects are a very inadequate reporting of the significant long-term effects. (You hardly need a reference for that observation, do you?) The geopolitical and foreign policy effects were enormous. So, the question is - should there be (1) a (fully referenced and verified) expansion of the current section in the current article or (2) an expanded separate article? That is what I understand Skomorokh to be asking before he was rather brusquely dismissed. Sarah777 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The long term effects section doesn't say much about the long term effects of the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks had a huge impact on the foreign policy of the US and several Islamic countries. There are plenty of reliable sources. The long term effects section needs a lot of work and a new article about the long term effects of the 9/11 attacks can be started. AdjustShift (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent. I think this is the point Skomorokh was making - it is certainly the case. And the subject is, I would suggest, too big for insertion into an already long article. For the reasons AjustShift gives I feel a new article is merited and couldn't be legitimately classified as a WP:FORK. It is an impossible position to say this issue must be discussed here before any new article is allowed. Sarah777 (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors are encouraged to be bold and creating this suggested article is certainly compatible with that notion. There are a good number of related articles (e.g. Post 9/11) that cover related subjects, and the collapsed templates at the bottom of the article page are a good starting point. My only words of caution would be to ensure that any new article explains the importance of its subject, and follows our core content policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify that I have no problem with a new article being created. Heck, I suggested it. But enough pumping of my own ego... I merely suggested that the bare bones be discussed here since it would splinter from this article. While it is true that it doesn't have to, and that an article can be created out of the blue like S HEFFIELD S TEEL suggested, it might be beneficial in the long run to iron things out here first. --Tarage (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Post-9/11 is a bit stubby but it could certainly be expanded to accommodate the issues Skomorokh raised. The opening statement that "Post 9/11" refers to the "state of living" after 9/11 is a bit restrictive perhaps. There are well referenced effects of very large geopolitical and economic transformations as a result of the chain of events set off by 9/11. I'd get onto it right away but I've got keep the world updated on the great flood of Derrybeg. Sarah777 (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Immediate response (refinement)
Please consider to insert after "...tens of thousands of passengers across the world.":


 * At 9:25 a.m., the Federal Aviation Administration ordered a nationwide ground stop with few exeptions.

--217.189.252.185 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"jumped"
I am no good at being sensitive so I will not try. I will just be a brief as possible to avoid offense as much as possible. "At least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers" & reference #47 (as of July 3rd, 2009). This is not an accurate statement, despite the reference.  The initial explosions probable threw people out of the building. Some people falling were seen holding, not just waving, drapes, tablecloths, or other large pieces of cloth; as if they were attempting to use them as parachutes. At the very least, there is proof that a minimum of 1 person did not jump, but fell while attempting to escape smoke, heat, and/or fire, by either climb down, climb to a lower floor, or simply hang outside the building by a makeshift rope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerothis (talk • contribs) 07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not too sure about the first link, but the second one doesn't work because it's youtube. I wonder if there is a word we could use to cover both intentional and unintentional falling in this case. --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "jumped" is sourced. Original research or logical deduction should not in general be used as a reason to alter article content away from text that is verifiable. To justify altering this, we should have a second reliable source that says USA Today was wrong, or that says the word is inappropriate or incorrect, or that comes up with a different estimate of how many jumped, as opposed to falling or being ejected. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)