Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 21

message: The term "Generation 9/11" is commonly used to refer to young adults who were between the ages of 13 and 25 on September 11, 2001.  This group could be said to have previously had no defining event in their lives.  Many social researchers believe that the terrorist attacks that occurred on that date caused significant shifts in the attitudes of this group; changes which will one day have dramatic effects on politics, economics and social policy.
Where are you getting this? And next time, place new comments on the bottom. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD A SECTION TITLED "Generation 9/11" 

message: I'm finding the section on fatalities choppy -- the paragraph about schools closing, etc. almost seems like it doesn't fit under fatalities, except for the part about many people being from certain towns. Could the school closings be moved to another section (is there something about NYC area response / reaction??) -- Anyway, I think that at least the paragraph of school closings could be bumped down a paragraph or two to the end of that section -- it seems the paragraph about the city identifying people/bodies is better flow-wise.... 
Anyway, I didn't want to change it w/o running it by here. KBecks 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: I just removed some text with the word 'bullshit' as it was hurtful to the event.  - Anthony Timberlake
:Who called “bullshit” and what did he/she call it on? —NRen2k5 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did someone typing 'bullshit' here hurt an event that happend almost five years ago!?! --Slipgrid 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: I've noticed a few places in various articles where references are made to the "attack on the WTC" and to the "attacks on the WTC".  Are both planes hitting the WTC considered a single attack, or do they represent multiple attacks?  The name of this article does not provide enough reference for clarification, as it categorically includes the plane in PA and the Pentagon.  
Example of the problem from Windows on the World:
Windows of the World was destroyed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At the time of the attack, the restaurant was hosting regular breakfast patrons and the Waters Financial Technology Congress. In addition to 73 restaurant staff who were present at the time, 16 Waters employees perished as well as all 71 conference guests. Noone, who was present in these rooms at the time of the attacks survived.
Sdr 03:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two planes hit the WTC:  'an attack' or 'attacks'? 

message: Is there any plans that any of the Wikipedia Adiministrators would make a memorial page for the events of that tragic day? Also will this be able to be a permanent memorial online? --82.47.145.146 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is one, http://sep11.wikipedia.org but it's in constant danger of being removed. --Golbez 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial 

message: I briefly added Template:Sep11dead, in place of the table of fatalities. I thought we might do better with a more horizontal format, and one we can hide. It turned out that the reference tags didn't work, as I should have expected. I could hard-code the notes into the template, but then we would have a second set of footnotes just for that section. I'm also not sure about transcluding content with a template. Possibly we could do something like we do with Portal:Engineering, if that's allowed in article space. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is allowed in the article, article won't budge… if you won't to improve the article answer some of the questions above. --LovelightTalk 2:20 AM 7 September 2006 (CET)
In the section 'Other potential hijackers' this sentence is included: "Plans to include Moussaoui were allegedly never completed because the al-Qaeda hierarchy allegedly had doubts about his reliability." One instance of the word 'allegedly' should be removed. Additionally, in the same section this sentence: "On May 3, 2006, a federal jury rejected the death penalty and sentenced Moussaoui to 6 life terms in prison without parole.." should have one dot removed. Mdagre 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format and layout 

message: Just for this minor typo in the section "Other possible hijackers": In a an video tape released in... Thanks.
:My apologies but now is the time to put that banner which shows that neutrality of this article is disputed. Would you please be so kind?... Thanks. -- Lovelight 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Golbez 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I'm not an admin, but we now have polls that now say 43% dispute the official story.  Yesterday, NPR's Talk of the Nation featured the Popular Mechanics guys, who just published a book, trying and failing to debunk the alternative theories of the September 11, 2001 events.  WaPo, just published a story on disbelievers. This article only reflects the views of one commission.  Almost all media organizations are now carrying stories of disbelief.  The neutrality of this article is now widely disputed. --Slipgrid 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the "saddam did 9/11" polls show us, facts are not dictated by democracy. The article has dealt with slings and arrows for five years, and it has received nary a dent; that either means we're draconian in maintaining it, or the arrows are ultimately weak. --Golbez 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."  Golbez, quit with your ct!  Fact is this artile is under dispute, not only by the American people, but people all accross the world!  Fact are clear that people dispute this story!--Slipgrid 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Polls or facts? Golbez vs US Senate? -- Lovelight 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread my statement, but that's okay. It's not like I expected an actual response. (ps - i think the people who think saddam did 9/11 are wrong, because they are, because the facts say they are. polls might say people dispute the official story but that does not make the official story false) You need something better, and you aren't going to find it. Just go to the conspiracy theory page, we have tents set up there for you. --Golbez 10:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you misunderstood my statement? Have you read those documents? Please read what is provided… It doesn't matter what people thought yesterday… few days ago people thought there were no secret CIA prison facilities, today they are outraged by their existence… What you need to do now, is to form another Al-Qaeda for yourself... Article is not just disputed, article is on the top of the building and it is getting ready for some freefall jumping… as you and I know there is no resistance in freefall, no resistance whatsoever. -- Lovelight 10:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: uh huh... --Golbez 11:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the war in Iraq have to do with this article?--MONGO 11:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Golly, I can find some links too...let's see...., , , , , , [], [] and for a good google video, try this one...[]...go forth and seek the truth.--MONGO 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say (outrages as it may sound) you won't to present pure facts and improve this article. In the interest of historical accuracy you need to mention how: "US president has again and again tried to connect the war (in Iraq), which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation." These are very small setbacks from current wiki policy on this page… Article simply needs update; article needs neutrality and independence. If we wage your links and mine, you'll see that we need to balance things a bit. As you refuse, I refuse too that my point of few should be in any way related to the word "conspiracy". Go forth and seek the truth… so to say… -- Lovelight 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovelight...I just got through cleaning up every single one of the external links in this article, so indeed, it is rather insulting that you would assume I wouldn't want to present verifiable evidence from reliable sources...surely in the ten minutes since I posted my links, you couldn't have refuted them all....I think this article dallies too much into things that have nothing to do with the events of the day of the attacks...and in keeping with summary style, I believe it is important to emphasize the scope of the events of the attacks and marginalize the after effects...maybe arguments about the war in Iraq should be taken to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or Iraq War articles, or something along those lines.--MONGO 11:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have noticed how article is extremely careful in regards to Iraq. However, as you see in example above it would be a very simple, one would say, very small sentence. Perhaps related source and reference prove importance? Anyway, I see your point, and you have my apologies for those insinuations (triggered by our history on this page:), external links are cleared up indeed. Thank you. Here are few suggestions regarding that section. There is alternative (current) BBC link, and there is also an interactive insight in NORAD activates here. In my opinion article should recall whereabouts of US military on that day (closely related facts there). I've posted those "no link" links on some related pages, and Tom was also very kind and pointed in same direction… -- Lovelight 12:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the question is to the dispute of the story on this page.  "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."  This article does not mention the possibility that the Federal Goverment  let it happen or made it happen, so this article is disputed, for many reason, by a large amount of the population. --Slipgrid 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then direct them here for an education.--MONGO 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there you go again Mongo… Say, what's with those links I provided? NORAD tapes for multimedia section? BBC contemporary link? That long term effects link? Small sentence about years of Bush's rhetoric's in which he justified war in Iraq with 911 attacks? How about those facts illustrated here in section called foreknowledge? Not to mention freefalls & missing planes and resurrected hijackers here… As I said article lacks neutrality, it is heavily disputed, I asked you for a very small change, why are these small improvements neglected time and again? You can't have only those facts which suit's you (I'm not saying that article didn’t improve in last few days, but nevertheless); you can't marginalize vital information which is proven to be true… And those dwarf stars for keeping the official misinterpretation? Half of you have one? What is that? Please restrain from such magna cum nada honors… It just leaves the impression that editors here act as employees of the US government (especially so in retrospective and revision of this talk pages), the more you resist the more obvious that fact is… There is a whole lot of inter-linked articles here, but one shouldn’t care what's written around, readers who come here to inform themselves about the facts, won't go further & they surly won't get facts. -- Lovelight 09:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An editor here, please 

message: I have to question the quality of the questions asked. Are we to believe there was a single question which asked: Did federal officials assist in the 9/11 terrorist attacks OR take no action to stop them SO THAT the United States could go to war in the Middle East?, and to which more than a third answered 'YES'? --JimWae 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the question is to the dispute of the story on this page.  "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."  This article does not mention the possibility that the Federal Goverment  let it happen or made it happen, so this article is disputed, for many reason, by a large amount of the population. --Slipgrid 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then direct them here for an education.--MONGO 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there you go again Mongo… Say, what's with those links I provided? NORAD tapes for multimedia section? BBC contemporary link? That long term effects link? Small sentence about years of Bush's rhetoric's in which he justified war in Iraq with 911 attacks? How about those facts illustrated here in section called foreknowledge? Not to mention freefalls & missing planes and resurrected hijackers here… As I said article lacks neutrality, it is heavily disputed, I asked you for a very small change, why are these small improvements neglected time and again? You can't have only those facts which suit's you (I'm not saying that article didn’t improve in last few days, but nevertheless); you can't marginalize vital information which is proven to be true… And those dwarf stars for keeping the official misinterpretation? Half of you have one? What is that? Please restrain from such magna cum nada honors… It just leaves the impression that editors here act as employees of the US government (especially so in retrospective and revision of this talk pages), the more you resist the more obvious that fact is… There is a whole lot of inter-linked articles here, but one shouldn’t care what's written around, readers who come here to inform themselves about the facts, won't go further & they surly won't get facts. -- Lovelight 09:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions re/in survey=

message: No I am not talking about a piece of clothing... I am thinking a section about the people jumping out of the windows above the section the planes hit to escape the toxic fumes and to have there "prefered way of death" should be added, as discussed in depth in the TV programme "The Falling Man" and shown in the infamous "Falling Man" Picture shown here  the problem is that many people do not want to beleve this is true because some people see this as commiting suicide and most religions say if you commit suicide then you go to "hell" or the religions equivilant. SKRIBUL 09:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link from USATODAY in regards to the estimated number of folks that choose death by jumping over death by smoke an fire.--MONGO 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jumpers 

message: OK, under effects of 9/11 in the sidebar table of contents thingy, there's an item for "audiovisual entertainment" of tv and movies that were changed or postponed, etc. because of the attacks, but I see no reference in the article to the effects on the families of those who have died, etc. 
The paragraph about schools closing that I mentioned below seems to fit that topic..... I'm suggesting that a section about the effects on families and the grief perhaps be added. Or is that just too sappy? Is there any article out there on the 9/11 widows (and all the other folks who had lost family and friends in the attacks???) I'm still pretty new so I don't know all the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works, thanks.
KBecks 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bereavement is universal; we don't have a section for that on every war and disaster since what people feel is pretty much the same in every case, and we already have a general article for that. If you mean particular actions taken by relatives in this specific case, then I think it would work; remember you can start it yourself!--cloviz 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything for the families? 

message: As of this writing the article is vandalized.  I am newly registered so I can't fix it.  Someone please do.  Might be agood idea to completely lock it, at least for today.
:It was a cache issue, the current article was quickly reverted. Purged the server cache, that should hopefully resolve it.--Mmx1 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalizing is in really poor taste. Seriously. Djsonik 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I am going to make it plain and simple. Do not add "terrorist" to the lead back. It will only be removed. --Cat out 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not better description of the action. Their actions were ones of terrorism.--MONGO 09:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: --MONGO 09:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely concur with MONGO.  The term, "terrorism" is appropriate in this case.  It's been used by  Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and major news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on...  There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. This has been discussed before, with consensus to leave the word terrorism in the intro. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think semi-protection will definitely be needed.  Just wait, please watch the page, and you will see that.  --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this article was fully protected for much of the day last year.  --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got the history window open right here, refreshing every few minutes. There will undoubtedly be others through the day. Protection will be applied as needed. --bainer (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Bullshit...if even the usually anti-American Kofi Annan can state unequivcally that the acts were ones of terrorism, then there is no reason, on this day to start fighting about changing it! --MONGO 10:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh heavens. The UN also describe the Israeli occupation of the west bank as 'illegal' - shall we begin the articles with on the West bank by stating that is is (fact) 'illegally occupied by Israel'. Of course not. Kofi has also said that the Iraq war was irregal. Shall we state as a fact that 'The 2004 US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal war'. Again of course not. Wikipedia does not do value judgements, no matter how widely they are shared. --Doc 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is non-negotiable. Value judgements are never neutral. --Doc 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is done in that article is not of concern to me...on this day, it's a bad day to pick a fight about the word that fully complies with the undue weight clause of NPOV. You know the link.--MONGO 10:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that argument does not apply. Sure, it would be a minority who'd reject the judgement that the attacks were terrorist, and we don't give undue weight to that. But that does not alter the fact that the label is a value judgement and not a fact. Wikipedia does not do value judgements. Although we can recored it is the value judgement of the majority. In any case, it isn't just Islamic extermists who'd reject the label, many who abhore 9-11 would recognise that 'terrorism' is a slipper and subjective term. --Doc 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is nonsense! The governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bahrain and even Libya, all called the events acts of terrorism...publically and officially...so are they making "value judgements"? That's ludicrus.--MONGO 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They'd also all call it 'evil', shall we use that then as a factual description in the introduction?--Doc 11:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They may have used that term as well, but the point is that the terms Terrorism and Terrorists were used officially by even countries that are predominently Moslem.--MONGO 11:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt, but it is still a value judement. It isn't a neutral description. --Doc 12:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll agree that terrorist has problems with NPOV, but to describe it as unencyclopedic does not seem to be plausible or accurate, considering even Britannica calls the hijackers terrorists and the event a terrorist attack. Kotepho 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a fallacy; note that the Iraq War with more than 50,000 innocent deaths and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 215,000 are not called terrorisrm.--cloviz 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Japan attacked the US first? Haven't you heard of Pearl Harbor? Don't you know the war crimes they committed against American and British soldiers? Don't you know the Allies dropped warned the Japanese that if they failed to surrender, the US would bomb them? Don't you know that Iraq was under the rule of a Moslem dictator who was committing genocide against his own people? Don't you see the coalition troops (American, British, Canadian, Australian et al) laying down their lives to free the Iraqi people? How can you compare Iraq and Nagasaki with mindless Islamist barbarism? Cerebral Warrior 13:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I made my point clear; I didn't say that those are terrorist attacks, I said that your argument was a fallacy. The murder of innocent people doesn't make something a terrorist attack. Besides that I think you should read well about the necessity of the nuclear attack against Japan; there are some interesting opinions (even from people you could admire) here. I'm glad you enjoy the fairy tales you are being told, yet I must warn you that subjective concepts like that of good and evil aren't suitable for politics; they are used by totalitarian governments to support their cause. I find ironic that you defend your government's cause with the same simple ideas used by your enemies.--cloviz 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not from the USA. Cerebral Warrior 16:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: An unwarned attack against the civilian population of a country not in a state of war is pretty much the dictionary definition of terrorism, isn't it? Guy 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to be mawkish to sustain an accepted idea.--cloviz 13:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely.  If Cool Cat is intent on removing this text every time it is entered, then I will simply block him for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to a direct quote from the UN ref given. I hope that will be an acceptable compromise for everybody. --Guinnog 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: POV on the word terorism? You have got to be kidding me. That is some of the biggest nonsense that I have heard regarding 9/11. Want proof that it was terrorism? Terrorism's goal is to cause fear. This scared the crap out of millions of people. End of story.
Look at it this way- if today was Holocaust Memorial Day, would you guys be insisting that a Holocaust denial theory proposed by some Moslem dictator be included in the article about the Holocaust? No, you wouldn't because that would be an insult to the 7 million people who died in Nazi gas chambers. Well, today is a day when we remember the 3000 innocent men, women and children whose lifes were snuffed out by a new breed of fascists-Islamofascists. Referring to their murders as anything other than "terrorists" would be an insult to the deceased, who do not deserve to be mocked simply because they were Americans. If you are an anti-American, that's your wish, but please don't insult the departed. Cerebral Warrior 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it easy. And remember, please, that Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it exclusively an American publication. Quibbling about the wording of the lead of this article does not amount to direspecting U.S. casualties. I think we are right to call it terrorism, hence my post above and my compromise in the article, but disagreeing with this would not make one anti-American, let alone be regarded as insulting the dead. Yuor comparison with the Holocaust is grossly inappropriate, in my view. Anyway, let's stick to writing an encyclopedia article here; it's what we do. --Guinnog 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked you to take it easy. The Holocaust killed over a thousand times more people and went on for many years. 9/11 killed far fewer and was over in a day. There are two differences for you. Let's stick, please, to discussing ways to improve the article from now on, as that is what this page is for. Thanks. --Guinnog 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole civilised world calls these attacks "terrorists". I respect your intentions to be perfectly neutral, but there are times when being neutral is being insensitive. The things Al-Qaeda and other Islamofascists have to say about 9/11 need not be put in the article because if bin-Laden and his lot don't like this encyclopedia stating universally accepted facts, they are welcome to resume reading the Coron in their free time. Your intentions are doubtless good but I am saddened by the fact that Wikipedia is not doing enough to mourn this day- including not even mentioning the fifth anniversary on the mainpage. Cerebral Warrior 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is explicitly not intended as a memorial. The anniversary is very prominently mentioned on the main page though, under "on this day". --Guinnog 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Doc, if someone says they were not terrorists, or that the act was something other than terrorism, I want a citation to a reliable source. I want to know who says, and what exactly they say. Absent that, I think we go with what the sources do say. The attackers were terrorists; everyone knows it; almost all reliable sources say it. Substituting our own preferred terminology is not neutrality; it is at best original research. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: While the events were sad, as was the loss of live (although loss of live occurs every day, much of it is partially or completely the result of human action), you might want to read up a bit before making up bullshit. There is little evidence to suggest the terrorists were inspired by the religious background of their victims. Indeed, a number of muslims were killed in the attacks (as victims) and there is a fair chance at least one of them wore a headscarf. As long as people like you continue to make up bullshit rather the read the facts, there is little hope for 'victory' in the fight against terrorism (of course this concept is itself problematic). Nil Einne 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't inflame the situation. This is a sensitive topic, especially on the fifth anniversary of the event. While I agree with your substantive point about it not being primarily a religiously motivated attack (indeed the article doesn't say it is either), we need to avoid terms like "make up bullshit" please. --Guinnog 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be getting off track here. First you were arguing that the motivation for the attacks was to kill non-Muslims. Now you are arguing that various Muslims want to kill non-Muslims (just as various Christians want to kill non-Christians, various whites want to kill non-whites etc). This is completely irrelevant to the issue of the movitation of the people involved in the attacks. If a white supremist gets drunk and kills a black man in an accident while driving, this doesn't make that a hate crime, unless it wasn't an accident or he purposely took a route taking him into a 'black' neighbourhood or whatever. I have seen suggestions the number of Muslims killed may have been up to 300. While I have no doubt the number of Christians killed was higher, this doesn't change the fact that a number of Muslims were killed which would seem odd if the primary motivation was to kill non-Muslims. Perhaps the biggest nail in your coffin though is that the targets chosen and the nature of the attacks suggest the number of casulties was not the sole consideration. The targets and nature of the attacks strongly suggest a degree of symbolism was just as important. As for the memorial, this has already been address before (wikipedia is not a memorial). In any case, if we want to have a memorial, how about for the millions of slaves mistreated and killed? Or for the millions of people dying of disease, hunger etc? Or for the 1000+ Lebanese civilians killed recently? Etc etc... Finally, I make no apologies for my statements. While I try to be sensitive, you have to consider my feelings as well. People who make up bullshit highly infuriate me. I do think I was quite clear in my response I was not defending the terrorists or saying the attacks weren't wrong or anything of that sort. I was simply taking issue with the non-sense claims which are not supported by any of the facts. In any case, I will be leaving this talk page and not re-visting for a while. There is nothing more for me to say... Nil Einne 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, OK, go read the Coran for a while. Cerebral Warrior 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe you are reffering to the "Qu'ran". What did you hope to achieve with this statement? A wikipedia user makes a clear and detailed argument about how they are trying to uphold wiki policy, but you happen to disagree with them but resort to making a frankly stupid and ignorant comment. I really find it hard to take your arguments seriously when you make such reckless and simplistic attacks on your opponents when they make a good point against you. --Tilmitt 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't worship 786 so I'm not very sure about the spelling of that thing. Anyway it's a proper noun so I doubt if the spelling matters. Cerebral Warrior 08:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit.--MONGO 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, that's hardly a constructive contribution. --Doc 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when some wish to pick today as a day to fight over wording in this article that is so widely used that it definitely falls into a neutral point of view, but insist for wide-eyed reasons that it doesn't, then there really isn't any better way to sum up what is just a bunch of bullshit. If Britannica can state it's a terrorist act, if the UN, and the majority of Moslem countries offcial declare it is a terrorists act, if every major news media can call the event an act of terrorism, then it definitely is a neutral term...except to those that decided to make today the best day to start arguing about this bullshit. I find arguments declaring such wording as a proper descriptive definition of what happened to be against our NPOV policy to be not constructive either. So, yeah, bullshit.--MONGO 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your view of neutrality; but until your latest interjections, I'd have characterised this as a civil discussion and not a 'fight'. However if civility isn't possible for you, and you are so hostile to alternative perspectives that don't fall into you own black and white view of the objectivity of language, that you are going to characterise my views as 'bullshit', then really there is really little point in continuing this discussion. I'm unwatching this page now - I'll not trouble you with debate any longer. Spin it your way. --Doc 22:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I'll spin it the UN way.--MONGO 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So long as the comments such you quote were on the talk page and not in the article, what's it to ya? If someone evokes a heartfelt comment on the situations in those other locations you mentioned, do you think us "Americans" would be telling them to "chill out"? Being that this is the one the worst events to happen to the English speaking world since WWII and this is the English version of wikipedia, no doubt the lack of editors on articles such as events in the other lands you mentioned are underrepresented to the point that heartfelt comments, perhaps made by someone who may have suffered directly from said events, would be rare, but should be welcome and understood. Surely had a similar event happened in Ireland or elsewhere, I wouldn't be marching into an article about that event and providing them with comparative analogies designed to belittle their suffering and emotion.--MONGO 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I am not an American, I am, quite frankly confounded by the way people compare things like AIDS deaths or Hiroshima to 9/11. AIDS is an STD, Hiroshima was a result of Japanese aggression during WW2 (in any case Germany killed way, way more people than the US did in Hiroshima, why don't you guys use that to justify Germans being killed?). 9/11 was an act of unprovoked, brutal Islamofascism. That's the difference. Please try to understand. Cerebral Warrior 12:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't know enough about it, then why belittle others who probably do? My guess is that America supports the state of Israel, so to much of the Moslem world, America is evil because Israel is evil. The United States supports Israel because it is a democracy, and that is the main reason we support them.--MONGO 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Terrorist' is a POV term used to describe violence committed by others you judge to be immoral. I am not going to delete it as the consensus is to keep. The fact that a consensus exists to retain a subjective adjective with no agreed meaning is a clear indication of systemic bias in Wikipedia WP:BIAS, in this case in favour of an American worldview. Curtains99 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect.  Terrorism describes violence, without military objective, intended to achieve political goals through fear and intimidation.  The term is objective, with precise definitions in criminal law. Peter Grey 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the definitions are precise, then which one is correct? Have a look at Definition of terrorism to see how this word means something different to everyone. Curtains99 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The September 11th attacks fall under all of the definitions.  Peter Grey 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist attacks 

message: "In any case, thick smoke and intense heat prevented rescue helicopters from landing." I flagged this as needing a citation; it may be that is better to just delete it as irrelevant, but I thought I'd raise it here first. --Guinnog 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a reference for it.--MONGO 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick work. Good ref too. --Guinnog 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopter rescue 

message: How about creating for example Popular culture (or Social impact) section? --Brand спойт 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: I couldn't find a link to the September 11, 2001 wiki, so I added it under "memorials". If there's been discussion about this link that I missed, please feel free to revert. --ESP 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sep 11 wiki link 

message: The lead link is currently to the U.N. I think that this like is acceptably broad and authoritative for the first sentence. Recently, someone tried to add a retrospective link (looking back after 5 years) to the middle of that sentence. Wouldn't it be better to move this link down somewhere into the body of the article, footnoting some summary of the ramifications? -Harmil 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying, like you and everyone else, to make improvements to the article, addressing peopl's concerns about "terrorism" by attributing it it to cited sources. It might be useful if my changes, and the links I cite, could stay up at least long enough for someone to read them. I'm sure you are familiar with the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, I've reverted your work ONCE, and I left you a note on your talk page, suggesting that you re-add it, should you feel the need. HOWEVER, we are in the midst of a massive rush of vandalism (to the tune of 3-5 per min at peak), so don't be shocked if someone reverts your edit with what seems like haste. It's not personal, it's just what it is right now. Your edit was questionable IMHO (that's not an attack, just my feeling), but you seemed like an upstanding editor, so I went to lengths to bring it up for discussion. I invite others to share their opinions. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: With respect to the 3RR, I have not violated that policy, and have no intention of even getting close. I have reverted "suspect" edits once and then left them alone (none have returned, yet, save yours), and I have reverted outright vandalism (not covered by the 3RR) MANY times today. Your edit was not vandalism, and thus I did not revert it a second time, though I do wish you would respond to my points, above. The U.N. link covers that whole sentence quite comprehensively, and I'd find it difficult to justify saying that the Guardian is a more authoritative source for either the first or second half of the sentence. -Harmil 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, in my haste, I didn't notice that you moved the link down. Nice job. I think that's a fine place for it. -Harmil 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead link 

message: I've been asking for sprotection on this page on #wikipedia for a while now. No one seems to be available. I'm going to stop reverting, and let others take over for a while. The vandalism continues apace, and is making editing by reasonable users (such as Tom, above) difficult at best. sprotection would solve this. Someone, please take notice. Thanks. -Harmil 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The unprotecting admin cited the 10-15 minute recommendation on the length of sprotects, but come on, this is nuts. It's pretty clear this article should be sprotected for the next 24 hours.--Mmx1 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving up 

message: The section about other potential terrorists (ok, hijackers) is quite long, and is given more attention than is probably needed in this main article. Anyone have a good idea for breaking this off into its own article and then shortening the section?  If survivors and the hijackers sections are so small.... the potential hijackers section requires even less space, IMO. Thank you! KBecks 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Potential Terrorists, I mean, Hijackers 

message: (I put this on top of the list yesterday when it should have been down here at the bottom --- still learning my way around Wiki...)KBecks 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: It seems like the part about the Moussaui (sp??) trial under other hijackers is getting way off-topic about 9/11. This content probably belongs under Moussaui's own biography entry, and doesn't make sense in the 9/11 article. I find it very distracting and off-topic to the article.....
Probably best not to edit today because of all the crazy changes going on, but I wanted to point it out. Would someone please help with this when there's a chance? Thanks. KBecks 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other hijackers - Moussaui (sp?) 

message: I think that the Public Response section should come first, then International Reaction.. (logically starting with the reactions closest to the tragedy, then the rest of the world). 
The paragraph about Guantanamo Bay under International Reaction is more appropriate to the next section about U.S. Government Response -- it should fit in there somewhere...probably under War on Terrorism. 
I also feel that the Alternate Theories blurb (listed under Reaction), might better fit under the Motive section.
Not editing today because of all the traffic, but wanted to note these suggestions. KBecks 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wait until tomorrow for major work on the article. The number of vandal edits means that we're going to need to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb tomorrow to make sure nothing snuck through. A major section re-org would just make that harder. -Harmil 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. This would be a poorly chosen time to try to work out any difficult issues. Tom Harrison Talk 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to re-order paragraphs under Reaction 

message: Given the amount of vandalism, I think sprotection is warranted for now. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainpage or not, the vandalism rate was unacceptable.--MONGO 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Which is why I posted the above... way unacceptable. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like you boys had a rough day, take a breath now, we'll have to discuss things all over, and over again… Mongo, in the meantime please reconsider that NORAD tape link; I see no harm in presenting it? Tom? Peter? Morton? Others? -- Lovelight 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotection by [[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 

message: I think the use of terrorists in the first paragraph should be changed to hijackers or such, as terrorist is an extremly derogatory and POV term. I realise it may be controversial to change though, so I thought I should ask first.
Pauric 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that terrorists can be a POV term, was not this a terrorist act? I'm sure that this has been debated here before and so I do not think that it will be changed. I do not personally believe it should be changed (as it has in many articles) and therefore if I had to cast a vote, I would vote NAY!!!The great kawa 00:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where a difference of opinion exists about a subject, Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) requires that 'all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one'.  Now we know that there is a difference of opinion about this subject depending on what country you live in: here is a paper detailing public opinion in five Islamic countries including the question 'Would you label the World Trade Center attacks 9/11 a terrorist event? The results range from 22% (Palestine) to 73% (Lebanon). So we have significant and differing published viewpoints and that means that the prevailing American belief cannot be present as NPOV. It's that simple. Curtains99 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to write that most Palestinians do not think it was terrorism, I have no objection (thought this may not be the article in which to do it). I would be interested to know what 78% of them think it was. Maybe we can quote some Palestinian leaders, or get some pictures of rallies. But again, choose the appropriate page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorists 

message: Keeps being changed. It shifts from color to black and white. The North and South tower reverse foreground and background. If you change the photo, please rewrite the cutline correctly.--Cberlet 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The top image 

message: From the "Other potential attacks" section:
:According to Mohammed Afroze, a planned simultaneous attack in London on the Palace of Westminster and Tower Bridge was aborted at the last minute when the would-be hijackers, waiting to board the planes they were to hijack, saw the damage in the U.S., panicked, and fled.
I'm not entirely sure what this is saying, but it seems a bit odd; "simultaneous" and "still hanging around in the boarding lounge near a TV set when the main attack happened" don't quite seem to suggest the same thing. I've marked it as needing a source; hopefully a direct quote or two will help clear up the ambiguity. Shimgray | talk | 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, requesting a source is a good thing, however, the use of the word "simultaneous" should be read with a grain of salt. It would be VERY difficult to arrange timing that was within an hour, even, given that you are dealing with the U.K., where it would have been something like 3-4AM I think. Recall that not any old plane would do, the hijackers were looking for large amounts of unused fuel, which means that a large plane, on an international or trans-contiental flight would be needed. That the hijackers in Europe were still on the ground within an hour or two of the planes in the U.S. taking off is not surprising. -Harmil 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronologically confusing 

message: In "The attacks" sections it says (should say) "Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near..." However, the photo is covering some of the text so that it looks like "Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed field near." Not a major issue, but still confusing anyways, and, I think this subject derserves perfection, don't you? Thanks. Wolfie001 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something isn't showing right 

message: There were reports during the morning of September 11 that there was a fire in the National Mall in D.C. Does anyone know what the cause of this was?  Should it be mentioned anywhere in the article (or one of the articles in the 9/11 series). 69.40.247.238 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source that could be cited? -Harmil 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was watching the reports from the day on .  They talked about it for awhile but it seemed to have gotten pushed aside as the more important events unfolded that day.  What I want to know is, does anyone know if there was actually a fire? 69.40.243.125 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know, no, just as there was no car bomb at the State Department. It was a weird day where a lot of reports were being made. --Golbez 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Mall fire 

message: Okay, can we chill on the caption? The original image with an orange fireball was quickly determined to be a copyrighted AP photo, and speedily deleted; hence the deletion tag. In its place was placed the current gray pic with lots of smoke. There may be some issues with cache, but I just purged the page, so that should be gone. In any case, if you see orange, you're seeing an old picture. There is no explosion in either building, but the antenna is clearly visible in the RIGHT FOREGROUND tower. --Mmx1 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no antenna visible. --Golbez 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a cache issue. --Golbez 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over Image caption 

message: The image that is now in the lead section is the old, copyrighted, image which has been re-uploaded by someone claiming to have released it to the public domain. This is obviously questionable, given that there is no information given about the location, time or identity of the photographer (:Image:Wtcsouthhit911.JPG).
HOWEVER, rather than simply removing this image (as it rightly was from commons), and since it is so iconic, and there is no way to replace it with any free image of that particular moment in time (see WP:FAIR), I suggest that we instead nail down the ownership and copyright info on this particular image and make a reasonable claim to fair use. Does anyone have the original source handy? -Harmil 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a note to User:Sarahjohnson22 since she uploaded the image. Antonrojo 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright 

message: I honestly don't know what the right course of action here is, because it's kind of a mess, but I have noticed that the timeline article Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks is being used for two completely different purposes, probably because the word 'Aftermath' suggested 'Effects' to someone. That article is being used for:
* A generic 'Effects of the September 11 attacks', which is the entire first half of the article. There is no such 'generic' article linked in the infobox, but that's what it's being used for.
* 'The timeline of the attacks from November 1, 2001, onward', which is the entire second half of the article. From a logical standpoint, that's what the infobox suggests it should be, but my guess is it probably should be named 'Timeline of the September 11 attacks after October', or something, so the article's purpose is clear.
I don't know if what is needed here is a merger of the 'Aftermath' effects into this article, or going the other way to say 'Main article: Effects of the attacks' in this article, and moving what effects are here to that location, or what...but it's a mess. What I am certain of is that there are two relatively complete articles wedged into one place, and I don't know of a good way to pull them apart. Input or action appreciated. Skybunny 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks]] being used for two purposes 

message: The page states that the youngest victim was 17, but I have read that really the youngest victim was 2.  "Christine Hanson, 2, of Groton, Mass., was the youngest. She and her parents were aboard the plane that crashed into the south tower."  http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/08/911/911__45_Questions.shtml
: This can be confirmed by the relevant NY Times' article and at the list at the September 11 Victims site. Richard G. Shewmaker 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngest victim - I don't think that this is correct 

message: A consultant, John Lozowsky, is missing from the Marsh Memorial at http://memorial.mmc.com. I'm providing the following as supporting documentation. I sent an email (via their site's inquiry form, so no copy) asking about this and received the following on September 7, 2006:
"Thank you for contacting us with this information. All of the names that appear on the MMC Memorial site have permission from the families to be posted there; if a name does not appear, that is because there was not consent to do so.
"Jessica Zimny
Associate, Corporate Social Responsibility & Philanthropic Programs
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc."
I removed material irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Richard G. Shewmaker 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marsh consultant losses 

message: The article at Mohamed Atta al-Sayed was recently moved to Muhammad `Ata as-Sayyid. There's discussion here on whether this was the right thing to do or not. Any input would be appreciated. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohamed Atta's name 

message: The North tower had the antenna shown.  No antenna of the size shown in the article's first illustration was on the South tower. The illustation's caption is incorrect.  --CliffC 17:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, fixed the caption myself.  I thought the article was still locked.  --CliffC 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North WTC tower had the antenna, not the South tower 

message: The subject is moot if the new replacement image of the Towers "sticks", but the "left" > < "right" word switch by User:Peter_Grey has put the caption exactly backward again.  See above talk subject "North WTC tower had the antenna, not the South tower". --CliffC 22:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hay foot / straw foot 

message: This section of links is anemic at best, and incredibly impartial, though how could it be given the title.  What would be the argument for not including actual, notable, conspiracy theory links? Aside from the obvious personal reasons. Viswamitra 07:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What links would you recommend?  What "personal" reasons are supposedly obvious? Peter Grey 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, I think that whole section should be removed ASAP or I'll be forced to put some weight in there, just to balance things a bit… I won't to hear good reasons for those blogs and if you put that Time articles I'll put some contemporary links from BBC which are (in my opinion) far more objective… Anyway, some good reasoning or I'll remove that all together or throw some alternatives in there… give an explanation for agenda behind those links, there are zillions available on "the other side"… it would be decent and prudent if we resolve this particular issue today. -- Lovelight 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this project expects from us to be objective and unbiased on this matter I'll remove whole section now. If someone wishes to revert that action, please do explain your choices and reasoning… we can discuss all quid pro quo links and arguments here… -- Lovelight 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Balance" is not necessarily what we are looking for. I think some clarification of the original criticism is needed. Peter Grey 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand what you mean, but all those related articles wouldn’t be needed when we could all agree to clarify and improve this one. For example, mentioning how US administration tried to link 911 to war in Iraq would be deeply appreciated; it is closely related after all, and it would be a very short sentence. Then a few words about foreknowledge and so on… We should also be far more careful while naming things… there is a difference between conspiracy theories, official stories, and truth based on facts. I sincerely hope that we are here to present (and determine) the latter. Anyway, I agree, it is not necessary about balance, but we need to establish some objectivity. Time is offering different picture then BBC…. -- Lovelight 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories 

message: I moved the link from the Congressional report on 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission Report page to here. --Sloane (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link