Revision as of 21:27, 17 January 2004 editKokiri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,101 edits my vote← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:25, 22 January 2025 edit undoWin8x (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,716 edits Reverted 1 edit by 2607:FEA8:28E0:1100:2C8E:2D14:60A7:A2C6 (talk): UnconstructiveTags: Twinkle Undo |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
] - moved out of main namespace. |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Article history|action1=RBP |
|
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |
|
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|
|action1oldid=2188400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
See also ], ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|action2date=February 26, 2004 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks |
|
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=2553382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
Old talk archived at ] and ] |
|
|
|
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=9272183 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
----- |
|
|
|
|action4date=29 December 2006 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|
|action4oldid=96577662 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. ] 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=27 January 2007 |
|
|
|action5result=failed |
|
|
|action5oldid=103691180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
A good idea, and one that will (hopefully) bring this whole pedantric matter to a close. My prediction is that "keep the terrorist word in" side will win handsomely. ] 09:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32 |
|
|
|action6result=failed |
|
|
|action6oldid=107932109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=GAN |
|
: OK. Let's do it. ] |
|
|
|
|action7date=October 16, 2007 |
|
|
|action7result=failed |
|
|
|action7oldid=164806833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=GAN |
|
: Err .... but I better point out that it is ''not'' pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a ''type'' of action, it describes a ''type of judgemet about'' that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. ] |
|
|
|
|action8date=May 19, 2008 |
|
|
|action8link=Talk:September 11%2C 2001 attacks/Archive 42#GA review |
|
|
|action8result=listed |
|
|
|action8oldid=213408835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=PR |
|
:: Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. ] 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=01:58, 29 May 2008 |
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action9result=reviewed |
|
|
|action9oldid=215415204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=FAC |
|
:::No, I only said it was terrorist by any technical definition that ignores the judgemental content of the word. Otherwise, will you agree to call the Dresden bombings terrorist, or Israeli bombings of civilian areas in Palestine? This would be just as "accurate". --] 18:26, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action10date=02:53, 10 July 2008 |
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive3 |
|
|
|action10result=not promoted |
|
|
|action10oldid=224667994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=GAR |
|
::::I will agree to have this same debate on each bombing you cite, yes, but not to make a sweeping declaration that nothing (or everything) must be called "terrorist" or "massacre" or "murder" because these words are judgmental. ] 19:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action11date=21:18, 20 August 2008 |
|
|
|action11link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA1 |
|
|
|action11result=kept |
|
|
|action11oldid=233054238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=GAR |
|
:::::We should be consistent. Either we avoid the term generally or we use it in every case where the technical definition applies. --] 20:12, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12date=19 June 2010 |
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1 |
|
|
|action12result=delisted |
|
|
|action12oldid=365085475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=GAC |
|
::::::Encylopedias are not about technical definitions, they are about common usage. ] 20:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action13date=5 July 2011 |
|
|
|action13link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 |
|
|
|action13result=not listed |
|
|
|action13oldid=437810140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=GAN |
|
: Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. ] 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action14date=20:05, 25 July 2011 |
|
|
|action14link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3 |
|
|
|action14result=listed |
|
|
|action14oldid=441341484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action15=PR |
|
==Google Hits== |
|
|
|
|action15date=11:51, 23 August 2011 |
|
|
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
|
|action15result=reviewed |
|
|
|action15oldid=446303582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action16=FAC |
|
:"september 11" - 3,940,000 (I think we can safely throw this one out as incidental - ]) |
|
|
|
|action16date=14:43, 30 August 2011 |
|
:"september 11, 2001" - 2,220,000 |
|
|
|
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 |
|
:"september 11, 2002" - 384,000 (for comparison) |
|
|
|
|action16result=not promoted |
|
:"september 4, 2002" - 199,000 (more comparison) |
|
|
|
|action16oldid=447487536 |
|
:"september 11th" - 1,390,000 (this one too --]) |
|
|
:"september 4th" - 121,000 (more comparison) |
|
|
:"september 11 attacks" - 289,000 |
|
|
:"september 11 terrorist attacks" - 125,000 |
|
|
:"september 11th, attacks" - 67,800 |
|
|
:"september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 40,800 |
|
|
:"september 11, 2001 attacks" - 30,200 |
|
|
:"september 11th, terrorist attacks" - 28,700 |
|
|
:"september 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 1,100 |
|
|
:"september 11th, 2001 attacks" - 1,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action17=GAR |
|
but...] 20:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action17date=16:23, 25 September 2011 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 |
|
|
|action17result=delisted |
|
|
|action17oldid=452181614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action18=GAN |
|
'''VOTE HERE''' |
|
|
|
|action18date=May 24, 2013 |
|
|
|action18link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4 |
|
|
|action18result=not promoted |
|
|
|action18oldid=556498139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action19=GAN |
|
* '''September 11, 2001 attacks''' |
|
|
|
|action19date=July 13, 2015 |
|
# ] 09:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5 |
|
# ] 18:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action19result=promoted |
|
# ] 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action19oldid=671152132 |
|
# ] 19:02, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (I would also drop the 2001) |
|
|
# ] 19:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
# ] 20:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
# ] 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
# ] 21:19, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=World history |
|
* '''September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks''' |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
# ] 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action20 = FAC |
|
# ] 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action20date = 2018-10-27 |
|
# ] 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2 |
|
# ] 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action20result = failed |
|
# ] 19:10, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (if used consistently for CIA-sponsored terrorism as well) |
|
|
|
|action20oldid = 865779234 |
|
# ] 19:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
# ] 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2003-09-11 |
|
*'''September 11, 2001''' |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=1418792 |
|
# ] 19:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd2date=2004-09-11 |
|
Note that this vote is solely for the title. I don't think the word terrorist should be taken out of the text itself. If there are credible arguments that the attacks were not terrorism, they can be included. In any case, that is a separate vote. ] 19:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2oldid=9955831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd3date=2005-09-11 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|otd3oldid=23006719 |
|
I think it is a nice thing to have exceptions in any policy, and this one seems good enough for me. This explains my vote above. ] 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd4date=2006-09-11 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|otd4oldid=75188318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd5date=2009-09-11 |
|
I think that calls for the term terrorist be applied consistently are politics in a thin disguise. It is fortunate that in this case, specifying "attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks" is sufficient to identify what the article is about, so I think that in the interests of avoiding a spree of people adding "terrorist" to various articles in order to make political points about government-sponsered terrorism we should just do the simple thing. Furthermore, talking about "the" definition of terrorism is disingenuous, since various groups have produced different definitions according to their biases and their aims, to reflect the different things that ''they'' mean when they talk about terrorism. ] 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd5oldid=313246231 |
|
:I think calling them merely "attacks" dilutes the reality of the situation. Specifying "September 11, 2001" is likewise sufficient to identify what the article is about. As for "the" definition of terrorism, Misplaced Pages is based on common usage, isn't it? What this event is referred to as should be the only question. Even if it definitively <b>wasn't</b> terrorism, if it's overwhelmingly referred to as such that's the title we should use. We still call it ], don't we? ] 20:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd6date=2012-09-11 |
|
::It is not "overwhelmingly" called terrorism. --] 20:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd6oldid=511650593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd7date=2013-09-11 |
|
:::Nor is it "overwhelmingly" called "September 11, 2001 attacks." If you noticed, I didn't vote for either. ] 20:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd7oldid=572507707 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd8date=2017-09-11 |
|
::::No one made that claim. There is no "overwhelmingly" used name, so we should just describe it in a concise and NPOV manner. --] 20:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd8oldid=800113517 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd9date=2018-09-11 |
|
:::::I think it's quite clear that neither title is NPOV. And my point about "overwhelmingly" was to defend the statement that definitions are meaningless. ] 21:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd9oldid=859078369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd10date=2020-09-11 |
|
::::::I agree they would be meaningless if there were an overwhelmingly used name. But there isn't, so they aren't. And I don't see what's not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks". --] 21:23, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd10oldid=977871368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|otd11date=2023-09-11 |
|
|
|otd11oldid=1174521963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|itn1date=2001-09-11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|itn2date=2002-09-11 |
|
|
|otd12date=2024-09-11|otd12oldid=1245107774 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Intel=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ |
|
|
| author = Noam Cohen |
|
|
| date = 11 September 2011 |
|
|
| month = January |
|
|
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Brian Keegan |
|
|
| title2 = How 9/11 Shaped Misplaced Pages |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/wikipedia-september-11-breaking-news.html |
|
|
| date2 = November 17, 2020 |
|
|
| quote2 = |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author3 = Stephen Harrison |
|
|
| title3 = How Misplaced Pages Grew Up With the War on Terror |
|
|
| org3 = ] |
|
|
| url3 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-september-11-20th-anniversary.html |
|
|
| date3 = September 8, 2021 |
|
|
| quote3 = |
|
|
| archiveurl3 = |
|
|
| archivedate3 = |
|
|
| accessdate3 = September 9, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author4 = Alex Pasternack |
|
|
| title4 = How 9/11 turned a new site called Misplaced Pages into history’s crowdsourced front page |
|
|
| org4 = ] |
|
|
| url4 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90674998/how-9-11-turned-a-new-site-called-wikipedia-into-historys-crowdsourced-front-page |
|
|
| date4 = September 11, 2021 |
|
|
| quote4 = |
|
|
| archiveurl4 = |
|
|
| archivedate4 = |
|
|
| accessdate4 = September 13, 2021 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=tpm|consensus-required=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|89}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 8 2013|Sep 7 2014|Sep 6 2015|Sep 4 2016|Sep 11 2016|Sep 10 2017|Sep 9 2018|Sep 8 2019|Sep 6 2020|Sep 13 2020|Aug 29 2021|until|Sep 12 2021|Sep 8 2024}} |
|
|
<!-- {{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}} --> |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Moved''', 17 January 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, '''Not moved''', 21 October 2004, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, '''Not moved''', 14 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Procedural close''', 23 February 2021, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ] |
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ]. |
|
|
|collapse=yes}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks|date=22 October 2015}}<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slogans_and_terms_derived_from_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=687019474 --> |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 64 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
|
{{hattop|]. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam. |
|
|
::The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article. |
|
|
::I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. ] (]) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:We go by what RS say we are not ] just to appease some people's feelings. ] (]) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hatbottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 terrorist attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
|
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." ] (]) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hatnote == |
|
|
|
|
|
@], the reason given for the addition of the {{tlx|Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think otherwise, but whatever. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on lead collage of photos == |
|
|
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}} |
|
|
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support'''. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – ] 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. ] (]) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ah, no worries. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. ] (]) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? ] (]) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Do you have any alternative suggestions? ] (]) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. ] (]) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Strongly oppose:''' There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. ] (]) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the '''exact moment''' the plane crashed into the WTC? ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. ] (]) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' The version ] supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like ] and ] have been making ]. In that conversation, I see no input from those who wanted to update the collage. However, now that Chronus has initiated this RfC I hope there will be more input from those who support the change. |
|
|
:I suggest keeping the current collage, but still working on the newer one to get it to a place where there is more agreement on improvements. Maybe the newer collage should have the same images as the current one? Or half the same ones? It is possible Butterscotch5 is right that the newer version isn't featuring the best images. To me, the newer version seems better because those with aging eyes can click on the individual images to see much larger versions and read the captions to better understand what they are seeing. This seems better than a single image file composed of several smaller ones, with a fairly large block of text to read through that describes them. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">] and ]</span> 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support (but keep current main image)''' Functionally, I think the proposed collage is better, the way each image is separate and has its own caption. It can be a bit unwieldy for some to click on a collage and scroll through it as one giant image. Also, the three separate images for the Pentagon crash seem unnecessary. But I agree with Kowal above that the current main status quo image is more "iconic". Showing the moment of impact with the explosion might feel more sensational but ultimately isn't important. The dark billowing smoke coming out of the towers is the ominous image that most people have in mind when they think of that day, and I think it actually captures the emotion of the day better than the fireball picture. ]] 22:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support with modification''' The current collage is rather crowded because it wants to capture so much of an extraordinarily complex and sophisticated attack as well as some of its consequences. I'd even say to cut down the proposed collage so as to represent one image per attack site (Pentagon, Towers, Flight 93). I think that'd improve visibility in keeping with HiLo48's concerns. |
|
|
:I'd also propose resizing the images to be equally large. I think doing so would prevent the suggestion that one attack site is more important or significant than another based on size alone, which I personally currently perceive in the proposed collage. ] (]) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.
But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)