| Revision as of 00:21, 19 January 2015 editTom harrison (talk | contribs)Administrators47,534 edits →Weapons: best to present the events in prose← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:17, 19 January 2015 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →"Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks": wellNext edit → | ||
| Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
| :MONGO. We're no longer in the kindergarden] (]) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | :MONGO. We're no longer in the kindergarden] (]) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Speak for yourself...--] 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:17, 19 January 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.
|
 | September 11 attacks was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 24, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, and September 11, 2013. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Incorrect sentence in "Memorials" section?
Greetings, the second paragraph of the "Memorials" section contains a sentence which reads "...Plans for a museum on the site have been put on hold..." Is this not incorrect, since a museum now exists there? 67.247.63.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Removed; thanks. Tom Harrison 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Attack Type: - Islamic Terrorism
Jihadism
Sunni Muslim extremism
Dsarkosky (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. Cannolis (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Weapons
Weapons
Boeing 767-200's Boeing 757-200's Pocket knifes Utility knifes
Don't you think it is ridiculous to call a boeing full of people a weapon? It has been used as a weapon but still Tetra quark 13:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have restored the comment from Gob Lofa, whilst it is not informative, it needs to stay until a consensus is reached on whether the aircraft were used as "weapons" Neither editor has given informative reasons - one way or the other. Further discussions from other interested editors is required. I also need to think-over my own views. David J Johnson (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. Many things can be used as weapons, even if they aren't specifically designed for killing. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- The entire article is quite ridiculous. Something more ridiculous, something less ridiculous won't make a difference. The article is garbage, a international joke. Dornicke (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why is that?--MONGO 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- The entire article is quite ridiculous. Something more ridiculous, something less ridiculous won't make a difference. The article is garbage, a international joke. Dornicke (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Gob Lofa: true. Can you explain why the list in the infobox is helpful to the reader, though? We already mention the aircraft central to the attack in the first paragraph of the lede, and the knives really need prose explanation in the article body (as is done) to be meaningful to a theoretical naive reader that knew nothing of the attacks. To me, this list is just taking up space without adding any value to the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Like VQuaker says. It's best to present the events in prose. The consistency across articles that might be gained doesn't seem useful enough to most readers to justify shoe-horning the facts. Tom Harrison 00:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Controversies
We have here an article about one of the most relevant events in contemporary history. A governmental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic.Dornicke (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you get your information, but the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source, if not the definitive source on the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source. LOL. See what I'm saying? Ridiculous. Editors of the English Misplaced Pages want to rewrite reality. Dornicke (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning.--Korruski 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source. LOL. See what I'm saying? Ridiculous. Editors of the English Misplaced Pages want to rewrite reality. Dornicke (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- 9-11 Commission Funding Woes - Time Magazine Dornicke (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I can't quite see when that article dates from, but it looks to be 2001-2002. Personally I don't really see the significance of it, but if you think that a fairly obscure funding disagreement in the early days of the commission report is notable then I am sure you can propose an addition to the article along those lines. Just be sure to avoid adding anything that can't be directly sourced to that article.--Korruski 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't care about your personal opinions of the significance of the sources, you can keep them to yourself. As for the sentence If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report.. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning - Stop right there. I'm not talking about "conspiracies", I'm talkikng about factual history reported in mainstream, relevant and reliable sources. The 9-11 Commission was HUGELY criticized for being underfunded, for conflict of interests, etc. This is on the major newspapers throughout the world. Don't try to play the "conspiracy theory card" to freeze this article in this version, which reads like a institutional pamphlet of the White House. There are and there were several criticism towards the 9-11 Commission. Not addressing this issue is FALSIFYING REALITY. Period. Dornicke (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, dig the sources out and start writing. If you stick to WP policies, you'll be fine. Good luck. --Korruski 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't care about your personal opinions of the significance of the sources, you can keep them to yourself. As for the sentence If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report.. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning - Stop right there. I'm not talking about "conspiracies", I'm talkikng about factual history reported in mainstream, relevant and reliable sources. The 9-11 Commission was HUGELY criticized for being underfunded, for conflict of interests, etc. This is on the major newspapers throughout the world. Don't try to play the "conspiracy theory card" to freeze this article in this version, which reads like a institutional pamphlet of the White House. There are and there were several criticism towards the 9-11 Commission. Not addressing this issue is FALSIFYING REALITY. Period. Dornicke (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks"
Is there anything to support the above claim? Something like the sentence of a tribunal based on factual evidence? 37.133.53.224 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Did you check the supplied sources? --NeilN 18:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, there's nothing to support those claims. The tapes are merely "attributed to Bin Laden", as several reliable sources have already stated, such as The Guardian ("A recorded message attributed to Bin Laden", "A voice attributed to Bin Laden" ), Al Jazeera ("major statements attributed to bin Laden since 2001" ), BBC ("Since the 11 September 2001 attacks, a number of video tapes, audio recordings, faxes and other statements have been attributed to Osama Bin Laden", "Audio message purported to be by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden ), CNN ("new statement attributed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden" ), ABC ("threats attributed to Osama bin Laden" ), CBS ("recordings attributed to bin Laden" ), CBC ("audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden" ), etc. The article, in fact, should say the attacks are attributed to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, since there hasn't been any kind of factual evidence or tribunal sentence confirming that. Dornicke (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. "Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States." --NeilN 19:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- A tribunal is not required to establish the connection: ample sources, including Bin Laden himself, have established the connection. This is no different from describing Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's assassin in the absence of a trial. Dornicke, stop tring to water down material to support conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- How do we know Dornicke really posted that, though? Maybe it's just someone with revdel access overwrote a real post by Dornicke. Attribution in the signature isn't enough proof that that post wasn't written by an admin trying to besmirch Dornicke's name! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Bin Laden is said to have claimed responsability. Only.
- The Guardian - Bin Laden voice on video, says TV channel: "A male voice - apparently that of Osama bin Laden - praised the hijackers as "great men . There was nothing to indicate that the sound-only recording attributed to Bin Laden had been made since the war in Afghanistan. The voice attributed to Bin Laden praised the participants individually by name". Dornicke (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- That post is attributed to you only by the site. If you claim that is your post, it's still only attributed to you by the site. We don't know if you're really Dornicke. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't see how that's relevant for the discussion. The article is not about me. Dornicke (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- It means that, by the logic you've presented, we have to assume your account has been compromised, and so have to assume that it's not really you pushing inane conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't see how that's relevant for the discussion. The article is not about me. Dornicke (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have no idea how you came to this absurd conclusion. My logic is: if something is attributed to someone, we must say in the article that something is attributed to someone. Period. If there's a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, we'll say this painting is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, not that is a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. The same thing applies for Bin Laden. Dornicke (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your posts are only attributed to you by the site, we don't know they're really by you. As such, there's perfectly well the possibility that post was made by an account hijacker. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Have no idea how you came to this absurd conclusion. My logic is: if something is attributed to someone, we must say in the article that something is attributed to someone. Period. If there's a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, we'll say this painting is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, not that is a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. The same thing applies for Bin Laden. Dornicke (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Really don't see what your point is, but I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant for the present discussion and just an attempt to divert the subject. Dornicke (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Did you just post that or was it an avatar of yours?--MONGO 19:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC
- Really don't see what your point is, but I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant for the present discussion and just an attempt to divert the subject. Dornicke (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- As usual, MONGO has nothing but "attack the messenger". Dornicke (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I must have missed it, what was the message?--MONGO 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- That we can't assume he made those posts? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Dornicke did make those comments and signed them with his own timestamp...but I'm not an authority so I can't be cited.--MONGO 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- That we can't assume he made those posts? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I must have missed it, what was the message?--MONGO 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- As usual, MONGO has nothing but "attack the messenger". Dornicke (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please Dornicke, Misplaced Pages in an Encyclopedia which deals in reliable confirmed sources - not widely discredited "conspiracy theories". You will get nowhere on here by trying to present your nonsense here, nor will you stop MONGO by trying personal attacks - that is also against Misplaced Pages policy. David J Johnson (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- MONGO. We're no longer in the kindergardenDornicke (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself...--MONGO 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2013)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class September 11, 2001 articles
- Top-importance September 11, 2001 articles
- WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
- B-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Top-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Mid-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Top-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class Skyscraper articles
- High-importance Skyscraper articles
- WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press