Revision as of 03:40, 1 April 2006 editNormal nick (talk | contribs)207 edits →In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:02, 3 January 2025 edit undoKerdooskis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,698 edits →RfC on lead collage of photos: Reply to RfCTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
''An event mentioned in this article is a ]''. |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{FormerFA}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{FACfailed}} |
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
----- |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=RBP |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
{{TrollWarning}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
|
----- |
|
|
|
|action1result=kept |
|
<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 5px; width: 560px;"> |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=2188400 |
|
The archives of the discussion of the '''September 11, 2001 attacks''' article may be found here:<br> ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], |
|
|
], |
|
|
], |
|
|
], |
|
|
] |
|
|
]'''</div></center> |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
==Archive this Page== |
|
|
|
|action2date=February 26, 2004 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks |
|
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=2553382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
Here are a list of headings that have nothing to do with improving the article. I suggest we archive, tell people to move this "debate", if it can be called that, to the conspiracy page. |
|
|
|
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=9272183 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
:"allegedly" - refers to hijacker's culpability |
|
|
|
|action4date=29 December 2006 |
|
:Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Loose Change |
|
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |
|
:Description of conspiracy theories |
|
|
|
|action4result=failed |
|
:Conspiracy Video |
|
|
|
|action4oldid=96577662 |
|
:Culpability |
|
|
:Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones |
|
|
:need these photos |
|
|
:Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact. |
|
|
:Conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
:The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale |
|
|
:Explain these anamolies |
|
|
:84%! |
|
|
:Lost conspiracies |
|
|
:Asymetrical POV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
===Favor Archiving=== |
|
|
|
|action5date=27 January 2007 |
|
] - This seems to me like a no brainer. Discussion is off track. |
|
|
|
|action5result=failed |
|
===Oppose=== |
|
|
|
|action5oldid=103691180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
Or perhaps someone wants to refactor? If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive. |
|
|
|
|action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32 |
|
|
|action6result=failed |
|
|
|action6oldid=107932109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=GAN |
|
I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--] 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7date=October 16, 2007 |
|
|
|action7result=failed |
|
|
|action7oldid=164806833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=GAN |
|
|
|action8date=May 19, 2008 |
|
|
|action8link=Talk:September 11%2C 2001 attacks/Archive 42#GA review |
|
|
|action8result=listed |
|
|
|action8oldid=213408835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=PR |
|
Breath of fresh air. nice. --] 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=01:58, 29 May 2008 |
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action9result=reviewed |
|
|
|action9oldid=215415204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=FAC |
|
==Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"== |
|
|
|
|action10date=02:53, 10 July 2008 |
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive3 |
|
|
|action10result=not promoted |
|
|
|action10oldid=224667994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=GAR |
|
Hello. I'm new here at the Misplaced Pages. But, when reading this article, I noticed that instead the typical "Controversy" sub-secction found in many of this Enciclopedia's articles, there's one called "Conspiracy Theories". This name is itself biased and in my opinion should be replaced by the typical and unbiased term "Controversy". I tryied to change this, but my edit was removed, what is the right procedure to do this? |
|
|
|
|action11date=21:18, 20 August 2008 |
|
|
|action11link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA1 |
|
|
|action11result=kept |
|
|
|action11oldid=233054238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=GAR |
|
] 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12date=19 June 2010 |
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1 |
|
|
|action12result=delisted |
|
|
|action12oldid=365085475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=GAC |
|
:This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --] 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action13date=5 July 2011 |
|
|
|action13link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 |
|
|
|action13result=not listed |
|
|
|action13oldid=437810140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=GAN |
|
::And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? ] 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action14date=20:05, 25 July 2011 |
|
|
|action14link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3 |
|
|
|action14result=listed |
|
|
|action14oldid=441341484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action15=PR |
|
:::People will respond. A compromise will be found. If not, then you go to the next step, with is a ] from the community. --] 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action15date=11:51, 23 August 2011 |
|
|
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action15result=reviewed |
|
|
|action15oldid=446303582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action16=FAC |
|
::::Unfortunately, this pov wording is supported by many editors who prefer marginalizing independent researchers and critics of official 9/11 stonewalling, by stretching the meaning of npov beyond all recognition. Thank you for bringing the point up for discussion. The 'official' accounts have continued to lose credibility (along with most every aspect of the Bush administration), not simply because of the conflicts of interest and whitewashing that characterized the 9/11 commission, but also because new answers about what really happened have lent additional credence to alternative scenarios. Yes, it is time for an RfC. ] 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action16date=14:43, 30 August 2011 |
|
|
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action16result=not promoted |
|
|
|action16oldid=447487536 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action17=GAR |
|
===Meaning of "Controversy"=== |
|
|
|
|action17date=16:23, 25 September 2011 |
|
''Controversies'' sections exist where there are some common facts and opinions differ on their interpretation and significance. So the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is controversial. Use of steroids in baseball is controversial. The gap between the facts according to the 9/11 commission and the conspiracy theories is too large to be considered a controversy. ] 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 |
|
|
|action17result=delisted |
|
|
|action17oldid=452181614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action18=GAN |
|
: Agree with Patsw, although I also don't think that "Conspiracy theory" has such negative conotations that it will become a problem. I think we all agree that the claims are "theories" (in the colloquial sense) about "conspiracies." If a "controversy" section had anything in it, would be about whether the gov was incompetent in not stopping the attacks or something like that. ] 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action18date=May 24, 2013 |
|
|
|action18link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4 |
|
|
|action18result=not promoted |
|
|
|action18oldid=556498139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action19=GAN |
|
::There is controversy over the whole thing. I havent heard so much controversy about anything. |
|
|
|
|action19date=July 13, 2015 |
|
|
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5 |
|
|
|action19result=promoted |
|
|
|action19oldid=671152132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=World history |
|
::. There are several different views about the topic and there are arguments based on facts on both sides. There is a public dispute between sides holding oposing views. I don't understand why don't you want to use the regular word for the name of this secction, I continue to believe that oposing to this change is biased. I can try to explain why: The set of words "conspiracy theories" has a bashing effect on the credebility of one of the sides of the dispute, and by using it, you're yourself taking part on the dispute as one that agrees with one side. You seem to deny there is a controversy here, but it's quite obvious there is one. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't exist movies about it nor this talk page would be so full. By other mean, not all the controversy about this happening has to do with conspiracies, and much of it is about simple isolated facts.] 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|action20 = FAC |
|
|
|action20date = 2018-10-27 |
|
|
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2 |
|
|
|action20result = failed |
|
|
|action20oldid = 865779234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2003-09-11 |
|
Refusing to use the word controversy and insisting on using the tag 'conspiracy theorist' unquestionably has an undeserved credibility bashing effect on anyone who expresses ideas or views that may contradict the 'official story' or mainstream media. I think this is intentional in many cases. And there are many credible sources outside of these. ] 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=1418792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd2date=2004-09-11 |
|
:::Yes, there's a controversy, but it's of the ''Earth is Round vs. Flat Earth'' type -- there may be people that believe that the Earth is flat, but it's not a credible theory that merits serious consideration. ] 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2oldid=9955831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd3date=2005-09-11 |
|
::::That argument is funny, because if there had been a Misplaced Pages at that time, then, at the earth talk page many would mention the uncredability of the possibility of the earth beeing round. Every theory deserves consideration, as long as you can't prove it wrong. And even wrong theories deserve a page here at the wikipedia, as long as you mention they are wrong.] 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd3oldid=23006719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd4date=2006-09-11 |
|
*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The conflict is from amateurs looking at a photograph and trying to put their random guesses on an equal footing with the professional assertions of the people who designed and built the towers or who analyzed the collapse scientifically. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the appropriate articles. If a particular theory gains credibility (in the professional engineering sense), then it might in future be moved to this article. ] 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd4oldid=75188318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd5date=2009-09-11 |
|
:The conflicts regarding what the true circumstances are behind this event are far more wide ranging than the ] ] 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd5oldid=313246231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd6date=2012-09-11 |
|
:I partialy agree with Peter Grey. Even though, there is no reason that justifies the biased and unstandard use of terminology. You guys couldn't sill explain me what justfies to remove an edit from "Conspiracy theories" to the regular "Controversy". I remember you that not all the controversy about this issue has to do with any kind of conspiracy. Remeber also that much of the info reported in this article has the United States government as the only source, wich is clearly an highly biased source. Now, please justify the use of the title "conspiracy theories" instead of the regular "controversy". ] 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd6oldid=511650593 |
|
::A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing. There simply is zero proof of either U.S. Government involvement or controlled demolition or actions by Israeli operatives that has any basis in fact. It is all simply wide eyed conspiracy theory rhetoric. That is why the section is noted as Conspiracy Theories and that is why this junk science is all in subpages. If you want to fill Misplaced Pages up with junk science, then do so over in those articles, not here. Thanks.--] 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd7date=2013-09-11 |
|
===Motivations for the Change=== |
|
|
|
|otd7oldid=572507707 |
|
I think it is up to you to show why ''conspiracy theory'' is not suitable for a title. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd8date=2017-09-11 |
|
: It's not a matter of not beeing suitable, but of beeing worse. It's simple: |
|
|
|
|otd8oldid=800113517 |
|
:*Misplaced Pages is suposed to be the more neutral possible when exposing controversial issues. Any natural language words are non-neutral by themselves, Misplaced Pages is made of those. If the expression "Controversy" is more neutral than "Conspiracy theories", then it's use improves Misplaced Pages quality comparing to the use of the current title, because it makes wikipedia to be more neutral. |
|
|
:*By other mean, the word "Controversy" is used in many other Misplaced Pages's articles. Then, using it here for the same sort of content will improve Misplaced Pages's Orthogonality as a Human-Machine Interface, making it easier for the users to find the information they look for. |
|
|
:*Finally, the word "Controversy" is much more general than the expression currently beeing used. By making the change I propose, references to controversy about conspiracies and controversy about simple and isolated facts can be adequatly separated inside this section.] 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd9date=2018-09-11 |
|
:: Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. ] 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd9oldid=859078369 |
|
::: Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"] 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd10date=2020-09-11 |
|
==Controversy shouldn't be allowed== |
|
|
|
|otd10oldid=977871368 |
|
:I dispute that the numerous ''Controversy'' sections which appear in articles are helpful. It's a method used by POV-pushers to assign more weight to critics regarless of their credibility. Other encyclopedias through the ages didn't see a need for them. ] 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Maybe you are right about that, but that ain't a thing to be discussed here on this particular talk page. |
|
|
::Try Misplaced Pages's first page talk for that, but i remember you that those sections can be seen as a tool for both POV and NPOV pushers] 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd11date=2023-09-11 |
|
:::Normal nick, if your recent entries are appropriate to be discussed on this particular talk page, my replies to you are as well. ] 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd11oldid=1174521963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn1date=2001-09-11 |
|
::::Sorry by the way I replied, I should have justified why I said that. That problem you are talking about is something that guives respect to the whole wikipedia, then, it should be discussed in some page related to the wikipedia's policies, and not on this one. Continuing that argumentation you started is off-topic and leads nowhere. You are saying Misplaced Pages's polices wrong. Particularily, you are argumentating against something that is clearly defined as necessary for NPOV in Misplaced Pages's rules. ] 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn2date=2002-09-11 |
|
:::::"You are saying Misplaced Pages's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? ] <sup>]</sup> 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd12date=2024-09-11|otd12oldid=1245107774 |
|
::::::From ]: |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::::"All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1= |
|
::::::"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."] 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Intel=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ |
|
|
| author = Noam Cohen |
|
|
| date = 11 September 2011 |
|
|
| month = January |
|
|
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Brian Keegan |
|
The ''points of view'' Normal nick speaks of have no basis in fact...they are just nonsense...and that is why they are not in this article.--] 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title2 = How 9/11 Shaped Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/wikipedia-september-11-breaking-news.html |
|
|
| date2 = November 17, 2020 |
|
|
| quote2 = |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| author3 = Stephen Harrison |
|
===In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else=== |
|
|
|
| title3 = How Misplaced Pages Grew Up With the War on Terror |
|
] 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| org3 = ] |
|
|
| url3 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-september-11-20th-anniversary.html |
|
|
| date3 = September 8, 2021 |
|
|
| quote3 = |
|
|
| archiveurl3 = |
|
|
| archivedate3 = |
|
|
| accessdate3 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author4 = Alex Pasternack |
|
|
| title4 = How 9/11 turned a new site called Misplaced Pages into history’s crowdsourced front page |
|
|
| org4 = ] |
|
|
| url4 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90674998/how-9-11-turned-a-new-site-called-wikipedia-into-historys-crowdsourced-front-page |
|
|
| date4 = September 11, 2021 |
|
|
| quote4 = |
|
|
| archiveurl4 = |
|
|
| archivedate4 = |
|
|
| accessdate4 = September 13, 2021 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=tpm|consensus-required=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
=In Favour Archiving This Talk Section= |
|
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
] 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|89}} |
|
=Opose To Any Of The Last= |
|
|
|
{{Annual report|]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 8 2013|Sep 7 2014|Sep 6 2015|Sep 4 2016|Sep 11 2016|Sep 10 2017|Sep 9 2018|Sep 8 2019|Sep 6 2020|Sep 13 2020|Aug 29 2021|until|Sep 12 2021|Sep 8 2024}} |
|
|
<!-- {{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}} --> |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Moved''', 17 January 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, '''Not moved''', 21 October 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, '''Not moved''', 14 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Procedural close''', 23 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ]. |
|
|
|collapse=yes}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks|date=22 October 2015}}<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slogans_and_terms_derived_from_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=687019474 --> |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 64 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
|
{{hattop|]. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam. |
|
|
::The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article. |
|
|
::I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. ] (]) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We go by what RS say we are not ] just to appease some people's feelings. ] (]) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hatbottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 terrorist attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
|
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." ] (]) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hatnote == |
|
|
|
|
|
@], the reason given for the addition of the {{tlx|Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think otherwise, but whatever. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on lead collage of photos == |
|
|
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}} |
|
|
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=92F7E6E}} |
|
|
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support'''. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – ] 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. ] (]) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ah, no worries. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. ] (]) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? ] (]) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Do you have any alternative suggestions? ] (]) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. ] (]) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Strongly oppose:''' There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. ] (]) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the '''exact moment''' the plane crashed into the WTC? ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. ] (]) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' The version ] supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like ] and ] have been making ]. In that conversation, I see no input from those who wanted to update the collage. However, now that Chronus has initiated this RfC I hope there will be more input from those who support the change. |
|
|
:I suggest keeping the current collage, but still working on the newer one to get it to a place where there is more agreement on improvements. Maybe the newer collage should have the same images as the current one? Or half the same ones? It is possible Butterscotch5 is right that the newer version isn't featuring the best images. To me, the newer version seems better because those with aging eyes can click on the individual images to see much larger versions and read the captions to better understand what they are seeing. This seems better than a single image file composed of several smaller ones, with a fairly large block of text to read through that describes them. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">] and ]</span> 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support (but keep current main image)''' Functionally, I think the proposed collage is better, the way each image is separate and has its own caption. It can be a bit unwieldy for some to click on a collage and scroll through it as one giant image. Also, the three separate images for the Pentagon crash seem unnecessary. But I agree with Kowal above that the current main status quo image is more "iconic". Showing the moment of impact with the explosion might feel more sensational but ultimately isn't important. The dark billowing smoke coming out of the towers is the ominous image that most people have in mind when they think of that day, and I think it actually captures the emotion of the day better than the fireball picture. ]] 22:02, 3 January 2025 (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.
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)