Sorry for the belated answer FHT 1 If and only if you can reach consensus that the current crop of sources is looney tunes then yes your comparison to 9 11 is relevant But I fear the opposite is much more likely that the consensus instead is that our current selection is correctly mirroring the general view that Gravity really is described as a sci fi movie by a significant number of good sources mainstream movie news magazines Your thoughts on sources using words wrong is an interesting topic in itself my view is that the way a word is used defines its correct usage but we ll have to discuss that elsewhere In the meanwhile I am afraid Wikipedia counts your or my opinion as original research unless we re published in a good source The definition of sci fi simply isn t as stringent as you might wish it to be and ultimately it is not Wikipedia s job to change how and where sci fi as a label is applied In short Wikipedia doesn t lead it follows 2 First science science fiction They re completely different labels Nobody is claiming Gravity has science in it they re just claiming it to be science fiction Second you seem to labor under the misinterpretation that a work can t be sci fi unless it has science in it which is clearly an unsupportable position to me I think but feel free to correct me your argument is really that the movie only depicts current rather than future tech and so isn t sci fi But again this boils down to the from your perspective unfortunate fact that movie genres really have no other useful definition that what people use to call films Regards