Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 64

Requested move 26 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → 9/11 – As the article states, the attacks are commonly known as “9/11”, most people refer to it as “9/11”, other articles about it on Wikipedia itself have “9/11” in the title such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 truth movement, and the United States Government’s commission into the attacks and that commission’s report on the attacks refer to it as “9/11”. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are they really commonly known as “9/11”, everywhere, by everyone? I don't refer to it as “9/11”, but you see, I'm not American. I doubt if anyone else I know refers to it as “9/11”. There is a major problem with that name for this GLOBAL encyclopaedia. To me, and to almost everyone outside the USA, 9/11 means the 9th of November. I believe we need to keep the more explicit, globally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11". Not only is "9/11" a common colloquial term, but it has also been officially adopted in various contexts. As MountainDew20 pointed out, both the United States Government's commission and its report on the attacks use the term "9/11." This lends official credibility to the usage of the term. Since other articles related to the September 11th attacks already use "9/11" in their titles, it makes sense to align the main article's title with this established convention. Also, being as this was a terrorist attack based in America, it should titled what it is referred to as in America. Yes, this is a global encyclopedia, but it is formatted mostly in American format. For instance, look up "color". The article is in the American format, instead of "colour". Same for "potato chip". Also, while the term "9/11" may have originated in the United States, it has become globally recognized and widely used to refer to the September 11th attacks. This term has transcended national boundaries and is commonly understood by people around the world. Using "9/11" in the title can actually enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. Many individuals, especially those who are not native English speakers, might naturally search for "9/11" when looking for information about the attacks, given its widespread usage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and widely recognized information. If "9/11" is the commonly used and understood term, it serves the encyclopedia's mission to use that term as the title for the article. Pmealer126 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11".
 * Your personal experience is not a WP:RS for making changes to Wikipedia articles. Again, the problem is that moving this article to "9/11" introduces too much ambiguity and makes it more difficult for users to find this article, we would have to disambiguate the article. Such a move does not enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As HiLo points out, moving it to 9/11 would just mean confusing it with the actual date scheme. This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME falls afoul of making things more confusing and harder to find the correct article. So I have to say Oppose to this proposal. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HandThatFeeds. I'm also not convinced it is the common name outside of being a colloquialism. — Czello (music) 13:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Britannica. I agree we can use the shorter form for some of the subtopics see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories but I think the main article should use the full term even though its primary for the number term with the slash.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Colloquialism. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Colloquialism. And early WP:SNOW close In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose — far too colloquial and I really can't think of any other attacks that happened on that date that the September 11 attacks could be reasonably mistaken for. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too informal. trainrobber   >be me  20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:ElijahPepe, User:In ictu oculi, User:Hmm1994 and User:Trainrobber66. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:02, 29 January 2024 (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.

Sidebar article expansion
Thoughts on expanding this sidebar to related articles? trainrobber  >be me  08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: It has snowed heavily today. Not moved. (non-admin closure) &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – They're terrorist attacks, so why not extend the name so everyone knows that it's terrorism? WP:CONCISE GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Incredulous oppose. Because of the superfluity of "terrorist", that's why not. You prop up your plea for lengthening the title by citing WP:CONCISE, which says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". Uh-huh. I suggest that "September 11 attacks" (i) is brief, and (ii) provides sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and WP:SNOW close. There's no ambiguity with the original wording (at least not one that would be solved by the addition of the word "terrorist", as other attacks on other September 11s have also involved terrorists), and if sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area is the goal (per the comment above) I'd say that criteria is already met – this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not sure how WP:CONCISE can be cited to lengthen a title. — Czello (music) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. As for other articles with this name, this is ambiguously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A read of WP:CONCISE, which was linked in the move rationale without elaboration, appears to solidly refute such a move. - Aoidh (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose and SNOW close. There's nothing confusing here, and citing CONCISE is... bizarre, considering you're making the title longer, while clarifying nothing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose This brings completely unnecessary clarity. In addition, the fact they were terrorist attacks is already mentioned in the first sentence, so any confusion as to whether it is a government attack or a terrorist attack is rapidly shut down during almost any readers first read through. On top of that, if the new title goes in the opening sentence, it simply clutters up the sentence by repeated information. In general it is an unnecessary change, and this argument should be shut down. I would agree with applying WP:SNOW in this case. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Snow Oppose, the September 11 attacks are a widely known common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Common name and what is is mostly called LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (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.
 * Oppose per Britannica as noted above.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, the current is common and the proposed may be WP:OVERPRECISE and less WP:CONCISE, all just to emphasise the type of attack.  Dank Jae  18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

“United States” in lead
Should the “United States” in the lead be a link to the U.S.’s article, being the first mention of the country in the page? Jackvoeller (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why, is it likly people will need to know what we mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a global encyclopedia, we can't assume that everyone knows what the United States is. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not serious? (Note: I live in the opposite side of the world to the US).14.2.196.234 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm serious. Wikipedia can't make any assumption about its readers other than that they are literate in English. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone literate in English knows what the United States is. We do not assume our readers are completely ignorant of the world, WP:SKYBLUE. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That has to do with citations, not linking. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the same concept. We don't need to link to the United States, in an article about an attack against the United States, in the English Wikipedia. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"At morning"
In the intro section, the sentence that begins "At morning," doesn't quite read clearly to American English readers. Just a suggestion that it be changed to "That morning" or "In the morning" or a similarly appropriate substitute. 2601:CD:4000:610:F435:89A0:E7C4:EA0B (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Goszei (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024
change in a "passenger revolt" to "what was most likely a passenger revolt" As it cannot be 100% confirmed if it was a passenger revolt or a malfunction of the plane. Pinkgarfunkel (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources call it a passenger revolt, so that's what we go by. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

New WTC *complex*
Second to last sentence in last paragraph of introduction implies that only Tower #1 was rebuilt and does not mention Towers 3, 4 and the incomplete Tower 2. Link to the page for the whole complex and mention there are multiple towers on the site now - a lot of people don't seem to realize that... Ee100duna (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Building 3, 4, and the Performing Arts Center are mentioned in section 6.1; additionally, there is a link to the new complex at the heading section of that section. I don't feel like it's really necessary to mention these buildings in the opening paragraph. However, I do feel like that perhaps something along the line of "reconstruction of the World Trade Center complex commenced..." or something to that effect. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos changed without consensus
I don't know who changed the photos in the Infobox, but the new photos look horrendous. I can't find any consensus in archive for this massive change, may we please revert back to original photos? Cena332 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it’s okay to change photos over time, but they should certainly be discussed here first, especially for this article. PascalHD (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

[[File:September 11 Photo Montage.jpg|thumb|250px|Top row: The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center burning

2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of the Pentagon; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC

3rd row, left to right: A firefighter requests assistance at World Trade Center site; An engine from Flight 93 is recovered

Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the Pentagon as captured by three consecutive CCTV frames]]

PascalHD These new photos were not discussed and just changed without any discussion, previously editors discussed photos changes to the Infobox on this article talk page first. Is it ok to add the old ones back until editors can have a agreement if we want to change. --Cena332 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say it is normal procedure to revert a change that was not discussed when necessary.PascalHD (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * just done. Cena332 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2024
September 11 attacks → 9/11 – More people call it 9/11. I rarely hear people say, "September 11 attacks".&#32;Merv Mat (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Merv Mat (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We've been here before - please see Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_64 for the most recent discussion. Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see nothing new from then last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously, no. This perennial request is going nowhere. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Britannica.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already previously discussed. Absolutely no need to discuss again. David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Islamist
This has been discussed many times before, with a consensus of sources calling the perpetrators "Islamist." A couple of editors have recently been removing it, with no obvious explanation. I have restored it twice. I invite explanations of why this ought to be removed, using references to reliable sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the previous consensus, which has held for years. We've been through various possibilities, but "Islamist" captures the motivation and ideology of the attackers well, and is supported robustly by reliable sources. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It sure is easy to talk about "reliable sources" and dismiss this edit as "unconstructive" when you completely ignore the reasoning given in the initial edit that removed "Islamist" and in subsequent undos! So that it cannot be ignored on the talk page, here's a little reminder!


 * First edit: No one calls the war crimes committed by Bush or Obama "Democratic terrorism" or such, so why should it be done on here
 * Second edit: Reliable sources are the sources that are reliable only because you want to call them reliable. Use of the word "Islamist" here is of malicious intent, and serves to justify the horrific actions and political agenda of George Bush.


 * So this is NOT about sources. Address the actual complaint please. Dalremnei --Dalremnei (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This discussion has nothing to do with George Bush or Obama, and you are employing a personal analysis that ignores sources, which are what Wikipedia relies upon. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This kind of opinion-based content removal is disruptive.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And why do your comments exactly echo the edit summaries used by ?  Acroterion   (talk)   13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please fully read comments before replying to them. The reason I copied those edit summaries into my reply is clear if you actually read it. --Dalremnei (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We already have addressed those complaints. The first complaint is irrelevant. Islamic terrorism is a specific thing, notable, and well cited. The second complaint is a combination of "I don't like it" and assuming bad faith.
 * I don't see how the first complaint is irrelevant. I'd also be fine with "Islamist terrorism" being the description used if that standard was applied elsewhere as has suggested. That would be maintaining a neutral point of view. It's not assuming bad faith when the terminology used is in bad faith, as well. --Dalremnei (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you need to dial back the rhetoric and take the time to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You sound like you're here to pick a fight, rather than collaborate in improving articles. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, RS calls it Islamic, so do we, what users' own opinions are does not matter, no matter how logical (read WP:NOTDUMB). Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you considered that in an Islamophobic, US-centric society, terminology used in reliable sources will reflect those biases? Wikipedia can and should do better. Dalremnei (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is always how bigotry gets justified online. It's dismissed as mere "opinion" or "feelings". 🙄 --Dalremnei (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * NO its not, and as said you need to reign it in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Caps are considered shouting. Please calm down. Dalremnei (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse other editors of justifying bigotry. That's a personal attack and can result in you being blocked. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How else am I meant to respond then? That isn't always going to be a personal attack. In most cases, like this one, it's just true. Bigots love to hide behind the justification of just being "logical" and "looking at the facts" and I should be able to call that out. Dalremnei (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By following policy, such as wp:or. If you want to make an edit bring forth RS that backs up your claim, do not make comparisons with other pages = using a wqp:falsebalnc argument. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's enough. Unless you have explicit evidence of bigotry, stop making that accusation. If you continue down this path, we'll have to ask admins to block you for personal attacks. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "show me the evidence" game, where subtle bigotry is never actually proof of bigotry and the goal posts are always shifted to excuse it. Classic. Dalremnei (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Use of the word "Islamist" here is of malicious intent, and serves to justify the horrific actions and political agenda of George Bush. This is a bizarre claim and completely fails WP:AGF. It is not malicious, it's a factual description of the organisation who perpetrated the attack. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I think it's a pretty reasonable statement which is why I started to revert the edits that reverted "Islamist" back into the description. But I think you'd need to ask the user who made that edit to explain further, since I don't want to speak on their behalf. Dalremnei (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With your second argument, calling the earth spherical serves America's propaganda purposes (Apollo program, etc.). Your first argument is nonsense because no one says such a thing. If you continue to prejudice and attack others, you will be blocked. See WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:FOC, WP:AGF and WP:UNDUE Parham wiki (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment fully before replying to it. Gosh, reading comprehension is shockingly bad for a talk section supposedly full of experienced editors... Dalremnei (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you undo my compromise edit? I was trying to make the wording suit both sides. Dalremnei (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Dalremnei reads carefully all the above comments by experienced editors: stops edit-warring and stops the use of caps - which is considered shouting. The use of the word "Islamist" correctly states the prime motivation of the terriorists and is used by all the worlds mainstream media. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is always how it goes on wikipedia. You try to make a positive change and then a bunch of editors with millions of edits going back decades jump in to defend the status quo. Dalremnei (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is positive or a violation of wp:npov? Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The page as it exists right now is a violation of NPOV and I was trying to help fix that. Dalremnei (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not require a false balance, it requires that articles reflect a consensus of the major points of view described in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence in those sources. To pretend that the agenda of of bin Laden was not Islamist in nature or to obscure it ignores reality. I will also point out that the lead paragraph(s) is a summary of the reliably-sourced content in the article body, so removing something like that from the lead accomplishes nothing except to confuse the summary.   Acroterion   (talk)   14:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay so when are articles about US war crimes going to refer to it as Democratic or Republican terrorism then? Dalremnei (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is whataboutism. But, in answer to your question – we say what sources say, and they don't call US military action "Democratic or Republican terrorism". The reason that "Islamism" is appropriate is because it is the guiding ideology that led to the attacks described in this article. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that not a clear example of the bias of "reliable sources" causing bias on wikipedia through wikipedia's policies? Perhaps the more accurate analogy would be calling US war crimes Christian terrorism. That makes just as much sense but would be considered offensive. Dalremnei (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but this is not the pace for that discussion, this is about this article, not any others or Wikipedia in general. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless you can document how Christian beliefs were directly responsible for those "war crimes", you cannot. Reliable sources have clearly demonstrated how Bin Laden & Al Qaeda were driven by Islamist extremist beliefs.
 * But this is getting into WP:FORUM territory, it's no longer about this article. It's about you personally taking offense to how reliable sources have documented the motives behind the attacks, which is a you problem. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How are muslim beliefs supposedly responsible for 9/11? That's a completely amaterialistic look at motives. Geopolitics and war are far better explanations than religious belief. Dalremnei (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We do not say Muslin. belives were, we say Islamists ones were, not all Muslims are Islamists. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You should probably read the article then, along with Islamism, because it's laid out there. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I knew this would happen as soon as someone tried to drag this issue into the talk page. You win, established editors. You get to comfortably ignore opposing views because the mainstream media affirms all of yours. I tried to make a compromise edit that addressed this edit but oh, that's not good enough... wiki editors demand absolute ideological compliance. Dalremnei (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we demand you adhere to our rules. If that's unpalatable, you may want to look elsewhere. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But it seems impossible to get this edit done in a way that satisfies "the rules". Every time I reverted the page it was reverted back, and then I was accused of edit-warring. If you aren't part of the elite editor clique your views mean nothing. Dalremnei (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so have you procduced an RS supporting the claim that it is only called this by the media, and was not, in fact, an Islamist attack? Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand that the problem with saying "Islamist" is that it promotes an agenda and the same standard is not applied to actions that could reasonably be called terrorism by enemies of the USA such as air strikes and war crimes in the Middle East. Either religion factors into mass murder events or it doesn't. You shouldn't get to pick and choose, even if the mainstream media does. Dalremnei (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No I do understand, that the USA is not a religion, and that we do not accuse any nation of carrying out this attack (which its perpetrators made clear was in the name of religion). And you are unwilling to listen I am not going to reply anymore. We call Christian terrorism Christian terrorism, why shous we not call Islamist terrorism Islamist? Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What you don't understand is that Islamism is an ideology. It's based on a particular interpretation of the Muslim faith, but we are not smearing Muslims when we point out that actual Islamists engineered the attacks in order to further their ideology.
 * You're attempting to pull an all-or-nothing argument, that we can never acknowledge the ideology of a terrorist group if it's based on religion unless we somehow include religion into the motivation of every terrorist group. That's nonsensical and not going to fly.
 * We understand your point, but you seem doggedly determined not to understand ours. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your point just seems to be "well the mainstream media agrees with our bias so it's actually neutral to perpetuate it". I'm sure you can understand why I strongly disagree with that. Dalremnei (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you need to try and change Wikipedia's fundamental rules for sourcing, which... well, good luck.
 * Also, quit fucking calling us biased. Your assumptions of bad faith are tiresome, and I'll be seeking sanctions if you continue it. WP:DROPTHESTICK and just move on. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm accused of edit warring. By your reasoning that's just a bad-faith personal attack and doesn't actually mean I was edit warring, right? If every criticism is just "assuming bad faith" (a reasonable assumption sometimes) or "personal attacks" and can be dismissed then I don't really feel like the accusation of edit warring is fair, or really means anything. Dalremnei (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * sigh No, and such pedantry is not going to work. You have been edit-warring, which can be seen by your edits to the article. That's not a personal attack, that's a fact easily reviewed by anyone. Attempting to play word games is disingenuous, and I'm done with you. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK what was wrong with the last edit, Let's engage in a bit of whataboutsim. Do we say "Islam (what RS calls a religion)"? Do we say "WW2 (what RS call a war)? Do we say "Dog (which RS call an animal)"? No, where RS is pretty much unanimous we do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * False equivalance. Dalremnei (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And that is just what you are being told, that is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what exactly is the issue with my edit? It addresses the controversy in this edit war without actually removing any information. I don't like it, but evidently everyone else also doesn't like it, which seems like a good compromise to me. Dalremnei (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The is going nowhere, a clear case of wp:idnht and it needs closing. Slatersteven (talk)

Infobox photos
Infobox photos were changed without consensus, reverting @Cena332's edits. The pictures that are currently on the article's infobox now are horrible, they only display the violence of September 11th. I think we need to have a wider variety of photos that show not only what happened on this day, but also the aftermath. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I suggest restoring the previous selection, which puts the event in better perspective. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have any thoughts on this suggestion? Reverting to a photo set that has been used or a new photo set that better depicts September 11th and its aftermath. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor GoatLord234 also remove this warning when he reverted. --Do NOT change a photo without discussion first on the talk page.-- Thanks for notifying me. Cena332 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no clear images of the attacks in either set. I wonder if we could use impact footage and isolate a frame of the second plane before the strike? Hmm1994 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Massoud warning
Let's discuss the addition of a couple sentences about Massoud’s warning about an impending attack on the US. The CNN source writes that "[the Defense Intelligence Agency] continues by referring to a speech Massoud gave to the European Parliament in April 2001 in which the cable says he 'warned the US government' about bin Laden," indicating that the U.S. intelligence community has interpreted his speech as an early warning. Dan Wang (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, not about this specific attack, Also this was not the only attack launched by him against the US (or the West). Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was interpreted as a warning about a specific attack (the cable noting, “Massoud’s intelligence staff is aware that the attack against the US will be on a scale larger than the 1998 embassy bombings, which killed over two hundred people and injured thousands”), not just Osama bin Laden in general. Naturally they didn’t know all the details, but it’s consistent with the level of (un)certainty that other intel covered in this section exhibits. For instance: "By late June, senior counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke and CIA director George Tenetwere 'convinced that a major series of attacks was about to come', although the CIA believed the attacks would likely occur in Saudi Arabia or Israel." Dan Wang (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not necessarily relate to the 9/11 attacks, I do not think this needs to be added. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would appreciate the input of any and all others as well! Dan Wang (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)