Talk:September 11 attacks

Requested move 15 May 2024

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.

---

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

We've been here before - please see Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_64 for the most recent discussion. Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing new from then last time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, no. This perennial request is going nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Already previously discussed. Absolutely no need to discuss again. David J Johnson (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox photos

Infobox photos were changed without consensus, reverting @Cena332's edits. The pictures that are currently on the article's infobox now are horrible, they only display the violence of September 11th. I think we need to have a wider variety of photos that show not only what happened on this day, but also the aftermath. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - I suggest restoring the previous selection, which puts the event in better perspective. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on this suggestion? Reverting to a photo set that has been used or a new photo set that better depicts September 11th and its aftermath. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The editor GoatLord234 also remove this warning when he reverted. --Do NOT change a photo without discussion first on the talk page.-- Thanks for notifying me. Cena332 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no clear images of the attacks in either set. I wonder if we could use impact footage and isolate a frame of the second plane before the strike? Hmm1994 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Islamist

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.

---

This has been discussed many times before, with a consensus of sources calling the perpetrators "Islamist." A couple of editors have recently been removing it, with no obvious explanation. I have restored it twice. I invite explanations of why this ought to be removed, using references to reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I support the previous consensus, which has held for years. We've been through various possibilities, but "Islamist" captures the motivation and ideology of the attackers well, and is supported robustly by reliable sources. Antandrus (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It sure is easy to talk about "reliable sources" and dismiss this edit as "unconstructive" when you completely ignore the reasoning given in the initial edit that removed "Islamist" and in subsequent undos! So that it cannot be ignored on the talk page, here's a little reminder!

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

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

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

And why do your comments exactly echo the edit summaries used by Par âpre aux astres (talk · contribs)? Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please fully read comments before replying to them. The reason I copied those edit summaries into my reply is clear if you actually read it. --Dalremnei (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have addressed those complaints. The first complaint is irrelevant. Islamic terrorism is a specific thing, notable, and well cited. The second complaint is a combination of "I don't like it" and assuming bad faith.

I don't see how the first complaint is irrelevant. I'd also be fine with "Islamist terrorism" being the description used if that standard was applied elsewhere as Par âpre aux astres (talk · contribs) has suggested. That would be maintaining a neutral point of view. It's not assuming bad faith when the terminology used is in bad faith, as well. --Dalremnei (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, you need to dial back the rhetoric and take the time to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You sound like you're here to pick a fight, rather than collaborate in improving articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, RS calls it Islamic, so do we, what users' own opinions are does not matter, no matter how logical (read WP:NOTDUMB). Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that in an Islamophobic, US-centric society, terminology used in reliable sources will reflect those biases? Wikipedia can and should do better. Dalremnei (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is always how bigotry gets justified online. It's dismissed as mere "opinion" or "feelings". 🙄 --Dalremnei (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

NO its not, and as said you need to reign it in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Caps are considered shouting. Please calm down. Dalremnei (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Do not accuse other editors of justifying bigotry. That's a personal attack and can result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

How else am I meant to respond then? That isn't always going to be a personal attack. In most cases, like this one, it's just true. Bigots love to hide behind the justification of just being "logical" and "looking at the facts" and I should be able to call that out. Dalremnei (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

By following policy, such as wp:or. If you want to make an edit bring forth RS that backs up your claim, do not make comparisons with other pages = using a wqp:falsebalnc argument. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That's enough. Unless you have explicit evidence of bigotry, stop making that accusation. If you continue down this path, we'll have to ask admins to block you for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the "show me the evidence" game, where subtle bigotry is never actually proof of bigotry and the goal posts are always shifted to excuse it. Classic. Dalremnei (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of the word "Islamist" here is of malicious intent, and serves to justify the horrific actions and political agenda of George Bush. This is a bizarre claim and completely fails WP:AGF. It is not malicious, it's a factual description of the organisation who perpetrated the attack. — Czello ^(music) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's a pretty reasonable statement which is why I started to revert the edits that reverted "Islamist" back into the description. But I think you'd need to ask the user who made that edit to explain further, since I don't want to speak on their behalf. Dalremnei (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

With your second argument, calling the earth spherical serves America's propaganda purposes (Apollo program, etc.). Your first argument is nonsense because no one says such a thing. If you continue to prejudice and attack others, you will be blocked. See WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:FOC, WP:AGF and WP:UNDUE Parham wiki (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read my comment fully before replying to it. Gosh, reading comprehension is shockingly bad for a talk section supposedly full of experienced editors... Dalremnei (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you undo my compromise edit? I was trying to make the wording suit both sides. Dalremnei (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Its what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that Dalremnei reads carefully all the above comments by experienced editors: stops edit-warring and stops the use of caps - which is considered shouting. The use of the word "Islamist" correctly states the prime motivation of the terriorists and is used by all the worlds mainstream media. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is always how it goes on wikipedia. You try to make a positive change and then a bunch of editors with millions of edits going back decades jump in to defend the status quo. Dalremnei (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It is positive or a violation of wp:npov? Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The page as it exists right now is a violation of NPOV and I was trying to help fix that. Dalremnei (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV does not require a false balance, it requires that articles reflect a consensus of the major points of view described in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence in those sources. To pretend that the agenda of of bin Laden was not Islamist in nature or to obscure it ignores reality. I will also point out that the lead paragraph(s) is a summary of the reliably-sourced content in the article body, so removing something like that from the lead accomplishes nothing except to confuse the summary. Acroterion (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay so when are articles about US war crimes going to refer to it as Democratic or Republican terrorism then? Dalremnei (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is whataboutism. But, in answer to your question – we say what sources say, and they don't call US military action "Democratic or Republican terrorism". The reason that "Islamism" is appropriate is because it is the guiding ideology that led to the attacks described in this article. — Czello ^(music) 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that not a clear example of the bias of "reliable sources" causing bias on wikipedia through wikipedia's policies? Perhaps the more accurate analogy would be calling US war crimes Christian terrorism. That makes just as much sense but would be considered offensive. Dalremnei (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, but this is not the pace for that discussion, this is about this article, not any others or Wikipedia in general. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can document how Christian beliefs were directly responsible for those "war crimes", you cannot. Reliable sources have clearly demonstrated how Bin Laden & Al Qaeda were driven by Islamist extremist beliefs.

But this is getting into WP:FORUM territory, it's no longer about this article. It's about you personally taking offense to how reliable sources have documented the motives behind the attacks, which is a you problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

How are muslim beliefs supposedly responsible for 9/11? That's a completely amaterialistic look at motives. Geopolitics and war are far better explanations than religious belief. Dalremnei (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We do not say Muslin. belives were, we say Islamists ones were, not all Muslims are Islamists. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You should probably read the article then, along with Islamism, because it's laid out there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I knew this would happen as soon as someone tried to drag this issue into the talk page. You win, established editors. You get to comfortably ignore opposing views because the mainstream media affirms all of yours. I tried to make a compromise edit that addressed this edit but oh, that's not good enough... wiki editors demand absolute ideological compliance. Dalremnei (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No, we demand you adhere to our rules. If that's unpalatable, you may want to look elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But it seems impossible to get this edit done in a way that satisfies "the rules". Every time I reverted the page it was reverted back, and then I was accused of edit-warring. If you aren't part of the elite editor clique your views mean nothing. Dalremnei (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, so have you procduced an RS supporting the claim that it is only called this by the media, and was not, in fact, an Islamist attack? Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the problem with saying "Islamist" is that it promotes an agenda and the same standard is not applied to actions that could reasonably be called terrorism by enemies of the USA such as air strikes and war crimes in the Middle East. Either religion factors into mass murder events or it doesn't. You shouldn't get to pick and choose, even if the mainstream media does. Dalremnei (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No I do understand, that the USA is not a religion, and that we do not accuse any nation of carrying out this attack (which its perpetrators made clear was in the name of religion). And you are unwilling to listen I am not going to reply anymore. We call Christian terrorism Christian terrorism, why shous we not call Islamist terrorism Islamist? Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that Islamism is an ideology. It's based on a particular interpretation of the Muslim faith, but we are not smearing Muslims when we point out that actual Islamists engineered the attacks in order to further their ideology.

You're attempting to pull an all-or-nothing argument, that we can never acknowledge the ideology of a terrorist group if it's based on religion unless we somehow include religion into the motivation of every terrorist group. That's nonsensical and not going to fly.

We understand your point, but you seem doggedly determined not to understand ours. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your point just seems to be "well the mainstream media agrees with our bias so it's actually neutral to perpetuate it". I'm sure you can understand why I strongly disagree with that. Dalremnei (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to try and change Wikipedia's fundamental rules for sourcing, which... well, good luck.

Also, quit fucking calling us biased. Your assumptions of bad faith are tiresome, and I'll be seeking sanctions if you continue it. WP:DROPTHESTICK and just move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm accused of edit warring. By your reasoning that's just a bad-faith personal attack and doesn't actually mean I was edit warring, right? If every criticism is just "assuming bad faith" (a reasonable assumption sometimes) or "personal attacks" and can be dismissed then I don't really feel like the accusation of edit warring is fair, or really means anything. Dalremnei (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh No, and such pedantry is not going to work. You have been edit-warring, which can be seen by your edits to the article. That's not a personal attack, that's a fact easily reviewed by anyone. Attempting to play word games is disingenuous, and I'm done with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

False equivalance. Dalremnei (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And that is just what you are being told, that is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but what exactly is the issue with my edit? It addresses the controversy in this edit war without actually removing any information. I don't like it, but evidently everyone else also doesn't like it, which seems like a good compromise to me. Dalremnei (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massoud warning

Let's discuss the addition of a couple sentences about Massoud’s warning about an impending attack on the US. The CNN source writes that "[the Defense Intelligence Agency] continues by referring to a speech Massoud gave to the European Parliament in April 2001 in which the cable says he 'warned the US government' about bin Laden," indicating that the U.S. intelligence community has interpreted his speech as an early warning. Dan Wang (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, not about this specific attack, Also this was not the only attack launched by him against the US (or the West). Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It was interpreted as a warning about a specific attack (the cable noting, “Massoud’s intelligence staff is aware that the attack against the US will be on a scale larger than the 1998 embassy bombings, which killed over two hundred people and injured thousands”), not just Osama bin Laden in general. Naturally they didn’t know all the details, but it’s consistent with the level of (un)certainty that other intel covered in this section exhibits. For instance:

By late June, senior counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke and CIA director George Tenetwere "convinced that a major series of attacks was about to come", although the CIA believed the attacks would likely occur in Saudi Arabia or Israel.

Dan Wang (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This does not necessarily relate to the 9/11 attacks, I do not think this needs to be added. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Would appreciate the input of any and all others as well! Dan Wang (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we change the infobox photos?

There was recently a conflict a few weeks ago over the montage in the the infobox. I would like to get everybody’s opinion on the infobox images and if we should change them. Indiana6724 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no need to change them Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This issue was resolved the other day. The infobox is back to how it should be. No further changes necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC);

The info box is fine as it is. I see no need for any further changes. David J Johnson (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no clear images of an attack in progress.

The closest we have is a blurry still of American Flight 77 before its collision. There is one image that the caption says is United Flight 175, but it's not. It's an image of its explosion.

Is there any possibility that we could use impact footage and isolate a frame from when Flight 175 was within seconds of striking the tower? Hmm1994 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So that there's a clear image of the article's subject. Hmm1994 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the point Slatersteven is trying to make is, "How does that better illustrate the article's subject, compared to what we have now?" There doesn't seem to be any real reason to do this. The article's subject is the attacks as a whole, not any single airliner's impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I also want to add we know what happened on September 11th. We know both the World Trade Center twin towers were struck. The instant after the impact of United 175 on the South Tower — explosive ball of flame — is sufficient enough. Additionally, as mentioned above, events of September 11th includes more than just the impacts on the World Trade Center. It involves events at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. No change necessary. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction now in place

Due to frequent but sporadic edit warring, I've placed this article under an indefinite "consensus required" restriction, the specific of which are visible in the header here, the editnotice at the article itself, and pasted below for visibility. I ask that regular editors here be watchful for violations and conscientious about making new editors formally aware of this contentious topic. Best practice is to notify people if they've violated the restriction and request a self-revert, rather than immediately seeking a sanction. The restriction:

Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The infobox images hs been changed without consensus. I just reverted it, but I encourage discussion here. Thanks. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)