Revision as of 02:49, 8 February 2014 editTarage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,875 edits Last warning← 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: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}}<br>__TOC__ |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 59 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
<!--{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}}--> |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
|
{{pbneutral}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}} |
|
|
{{September 11 arbcom}} |
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes| 1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=Top|listas=September 11 attacks}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia|class=B|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B |
|
|
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist --> |
|
|
|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = yes |
|
|
|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|B3 <!-- Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = yes |
|
|
|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|US=yes}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=History|WPCD=yes|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages CD selection|class=B}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Article history|action1=RBP |
|
{{Article history|action1=RBP |
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
|
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |
Line 143: |
Line 109: |
|
|action18oldid=556498139 |
|
|action18oldid=556498139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action19=GAN |
|
|topic=History |
|
|
|
|action19date=July 13, 2015 |
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|
|
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|action19result=promoted |
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-09-11|oldid1=9955831|date2=2005-09-11|oldid2=23006719|date3=2006-09-11|oldid3=75188318|date4=2009-09-11|oldid4=313246231|date5=2012-09-11|oldid5=511650593|date6=2013-09-11|oldid6=572507707}} |
|
|
|
|action19oldid=671152132 |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|age=30 |
|
|
|index=./Archive index |
|
|
|bot=MiszaBot |
|
|
|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives |
|
|
|search=yes |
|
|
|auto=short |
|
|
|collapsible=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Featured article tools}} |
|
|
{{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 = ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{FailedGA|01:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)|topic=World History|page=4}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=World history |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|action20 = FAC |
|
|
|action20date = 2018-10-27 |
|
|
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2 |
|
|
|action20result = failed |
|
|
|action20oldid = 865779234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2003-09-11 |
|
Hi folks, |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=1418792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd2date=2004-09-11 |
|
This article is a core part of ] and I think we can it back to at ''least'' GA status, but I want to know what needs to happen for that to occur. {{u|MONGO}}, you appear to be an active participant. Thoughts? <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">''''']]]'''''</span> 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2oldid=9955831 |
|
:It's probably close to GA now...the refs have to be checked out...] is the last person to bring it to GA.--] 22:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: References 288 and 294 have broken parameters. I'm going to go fix them right now. Otherwise, it looks fine. Perhaps looks closer to FA than GA. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">''''']]]'''''</span> 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK, I'll take a look. It's been a while since I validated the references or read through the article beginning to end. I'll see what I can do. ] (]) 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Dead links === |
|
|
I've run the article through the ] tool and it found 15 broken links which I've tagged with <nowiki>{{broken link}}</nowiki>. ] (]) 18:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd3date=2005-09-11 |
|
== A poetic view to the september 11 attacks titled " Pencils and Chalks- 9/11 an eastside view" == |
|
|
|
|otd3oldid=23006719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd4date=2006-09-11 |
|
From - sunil malhotra,new delhi |
|
|
|
|otd4oldid=75188318 |
|
9/11 is an event signifying retributive justice, it's futility, seen from an eastern perspective. The poem below was penned in its aftermath, absorbing the essence of the underlying retributive phenomenon, and churning it with an Indian thought and ethos, grounded in the tenet of forgiveness,tolerance. We destruct, then we reconstruct. One shatters life and it's notions. The other rekindles hope and faith, resurrects. An architectural cum a spiritual view is attempted through the verse to inspire courage,hope and spiritual freedom. |
|
|
The attached verse is in three parts- a letter to it's reader, an introduction to the verse and finally the verse "Pencils and Chalks- 9/11 an eastside view".https://commons.wikimedia.org/file:pencils_and_chalks.pdf <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd5date=2009-09-11 |
|
:That's... interesting, but the article is bloated enough as is. Not sure if this would fit anywhere. I appreciate the effort though. --] (]) 11:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd5oldid=313246231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd6date=2012-09-11 |
|
== Reliable sources == |
|
|
|
|otd6oldid=511650593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd7date=2013-09-11 |
|
It seems that not a single element going against the official version is present in this article. So, not a single book or a single article is deemed a "reliable source"? Strange, to say the least. --] (]) 05:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd7oldid=572507707 |
|
:They are '''not''' "reliable"; those that are published are published in fringe journals, and those that are from "experts" are not from experts in the appropriate field. — ] ] 10:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Are you saying that all references in this article meet this standard? --] (]) 14:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm sure there are a number of unreliable sources here, already, but I suspect everything here is sourced to a reliable source. — ] ] 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So, an unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes a reliable source? --] (]) 07:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't see how you can interpret what I said in that manner, but it's ''partially'' correct. An unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes reliable for the fact that it was said, not for its content. — ] ] 16:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If this logic is at work here, Misplaced Pages looses much of its interest, IMHO. --] (]) 01:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::If you are going to simply parrot back the same lines over and over again, don't bother. Arthur has been more than polite with you, but you aren't listening. If you wish to include any new/different information, provide reliable sources stating that information. Per the above, sources from fringe journals and from experts speaking of fields outside their expertise do not count as reliable sources. If you cannot do this, please cease this pointless discussion. --] (]) 08:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Sorry if I looked like parroting Arthur's words, but they are so incredible I wanted to be sure that is what he wanted to say. Do you agree with him that "An unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes reliable for the fact that it was said, not for its content."? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::That is, broadly, correct. If an unreliable source says 'X happened', and then (say) a reliable major newspaper says 'Some people have been saying that X happened', then we ''might'' want to use this as a source to say that people believe that X happened, but not that X ''actually happened''. Does that make sense? However, I don't think it's actually what Arthur Rubin was saying. I think his point was that this article may contain some unreliable sources, but as long as all facts are sourced to reliable sources then it's not a problem if we also double-up with some unreliable ones. What's not ok is if we have facts that are ''only'' sourced to unreliable sources. Hope this helps clarify.--]<sup>]</sup> 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::So, major news organizations never said anything that was against the official version of what happened and never proved wrong? --] (]) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I honestly don't know. I was talking theoretically to explain a point about sourcing on Misplaced Pages. You find a reliable source that goes against the official version, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to add it.--]<sup>]</sup> 13:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd8date=2017-09-11 |
|
:::::::::::Conversely, does a reliable source citing an unreliable source become an unreliable source? There have apparently been many books written contesting the official version (just type in "9/11 conspiracy" in Amazon and you get over 1,000 results), by people with either training or various experience in the subject, so surely they would be considered a reliable source. Books like , written by ], a distinguished scholar, to name but one, who is used as a reference on the JFK Conspiracy article page for his own book on that subject, means if they are considered reliable there then they should be considered a reliable source here. But that's not the issue here. There is already an article which covers this called ], but the real question is why does this article have no section on, or linking to ] the way the ] has, which links to the ]? It is my understanding they as sources would still be considered "fringe theories" or "fiction", and would therefore have no place in this article. That is apparently the general consensus (majority, not unanimous) here from editors who have worked on this article. However, that reasoning conflicts with the linking process on the JFK articles. Here's another question: is an unreliable non-fringe theory source more reliable than a reliable fringe theory source??? -- <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.0em 0.0em 0.0em; class=texhtml">] | ]</span> 17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd8oldid=800113517 |
|
(unindenting for ease of reading)Actually, this article does link to the conspiracy theories page in the 'cultural impact' section. You could argue that the JFK conspiracy theories are much more mainstream and well-embedded in popular culture given that they have appeared in a number of bestselling novels, non-fiction books and movies. 9/11 conspiracy theories have generally been relegated to fringe forums, self-published material and a handful of very niche books with limited circulation. Of course, that's my own fairly subjective assessment, I don't know if that's actually the reason for the difference or if it's just a typical[REDACTED] case of ]. In answer to your last question, I would say - no in theory. In practice, though, I suppose there's an argument that a non-fringe theory is likely to have a wide range of sources, ranging from the highly reliable to the somewhat questionable, and that's probably fine (though obviously not perfect) whereas a fringe theory that is supported by only one somewhat questionable source is probably not going to be ok. I'm not really sure how productive this theoretical argument is, though. Bottom line - if you have well-sourced material you want to add, then do so. If you have identified poorly-sourced material you want to remove, then do so. Just make sure you explain your actions and be prepared to discuss them here if anyone objects.--]<sup>]</sup> 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd9date=2018-09-11 |
|
(Whoops, Korruski snuck in an edit while I was typing) It's a stretch of logic there. Let me clarify what Arthur and Korruski are saying. This article has many reliable sources that overlap to state what is currently stated in the article. Some of them may not be 100% reliable, but due to the overlap, the entire narrative is more or less complete. There have been sources that state things contradictory to this narrative, but they are not reliable. There is due reporting of the phenomenon behind them in the appropriate articles such as the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. In most cases, any new source provided by zealous editors such as Japarthur either contradict existing conspiracy theories, or are not reliable, or both. To put it simply, there is a mountain of sources that state what the article states, and a handful of piles of sources that say various other things. To include more than a mention in the main article of these theories would be placing undue weight on them. Lastly, Misplaced Pages is a living breathing entity with numerous editors. There is not one right way to build a page, and just because one page does something one way does not mean another must adhere to that page's guidelines. Consensus has been built through calm debate and discussion, and unfortunately it would take quite a bit to reverse it. I hope that helps you both understand the current state of the article and why hyperbole is a waste of time. If you have reliable sources to bring to the table, please do so. Otherwise, I'm afraid this discussion is moot. --] (]) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd9oldid=859078369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd10date=2020-09-11 |
|
: I once did my own personal study of the sources on this page (about five years ago). What you find is that of a list of almost a hundred separate sources, they all go back to the government. |
|
|
|
|otd10oldid=977871368 |
|
: When looking at sources, it's useful to ask where does this information really come from? How is this information known. |
|
|
Do we know something because: |
|
|
* a paper says they report it |
|
|
* a paper says the government says it |
|
|
* a paper says a book says it |
|
|
* a paper says a group of experts find it |
|
|
* a paper uses leaked documents as the source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd11date=2023-09-11 |
|
:When looking at the sources for this article in the past, over 95% of them were based on government sources. Most every source checked got its information from a government source or commission. For an example, we know the time the plane hit the Pentagon because a government official at the Pentagon told the news paper, and that paper is referenced in Misplaced Pages. Any disparity in information, such as a disparity between primary sources and government sources as to when a plane hit the Pentagon as fringe. |
|
|
|
|otd11oldid=1174521963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn1date=2001-09-11 |
|
:But, what is really fringe is that this article is basically a government press release. That, every source when checked will go back to a government document, statement, or release. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|itn2date=2002-09-11 |
|
:: Firstly, please sign your "contributions". Secondly, if you want to peddle conspiracy theories I suggest you use one of the many sites on the internet. Misplaced Pages is a encylopedia and relies on reliable sources, not just "government documents" - but other confirmed statements and film archives. You have not provided any references/sources for your sweeping statements either. Thank you, ] (]) 21:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|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 |
|
::: If you want to be taken seriously then don't talk down to me, use fear quotes, or weaponized language. This discussion is on the sources in this article. Please stick to the topic. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
::::Misplaced Pages does not care of the origin of information, only that the sources are reliable. Where those reliable sources get there information is of no concern to us. --] (]) 11:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| 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}} |
|
@Japarthur: of course. |
|
|
|
{{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}} |
|
] (]) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- {{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= |
|
Are reliable ? ;-) ] (]) 13:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* 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, ] |
|
I guess he is both , but for some reason still no place for alternative views and questions in this article.. well, maybe only a 'conspiracy' mention under 'culture' section. I laugh at the 'objectivity' of 'powerful' editors here keeping this article under 'protection' from 'vandals'. Shame on you for doing the *job* you are doing. ] (]) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* 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, ] |
|
There's of course no place here for ], , after all, they are USA enemies, and this is en/USA[REDACTED] ! ] (]) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ] |
|
:We have never, nor will we ever use youtube videos as sources. Get off your soapbox or your comments will be removed. --] (]) 22:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* 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, ] |
|
::you are missing a point i am trying to make. There are very relevant and notable people like ] talking different things about 911, and yet you guys guarding this article are trying to pretend that every alternative view is coming from wacky non-reliable and irrelevant sources. !!! Shame on you. ] (]) 02:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ]. |
|
Maybe testimony of transportation secretary recorded on ] is reputable enough ] (]) 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|collapse=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}} |
|
== conspiracy / alternative theories a culture section?? == |
|
|
|
{{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 --> |
|
{{collapse top|Last warning. Take the soapboxing elsewhere.}} |
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:it is NOT nice to remove VALID concern about WP:DUE. I don't know about this Peter guy, you can collapse his comment if you like. ] (]) 02:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
|
|
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index |
|
This page contains the biggest lies of all time! No facts! Only things you have seen on TV! |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |
|
] (]) 15:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC) <br> |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
_______________________________________________________________________<br> |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
<br> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
I object to the placement of a single reference to alternative views in the middle of the huge article into the 'culture' section. |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
Above users say there are no experts in relevant fields saying the opposite. Editor is either ignorant of the mass of the information, which I doubt is true, or what is more likely purposefully dishonest. |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|
|
|
|counter = 64 |
|
So many questions about events of the day have been asked by people involved in the events, eyewitnesses, etc.. and those questions have not been answered by officials. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
I request a more ] NPOV representations of the alternative view and accounts in this article. |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Reliable is not only mainstream. Mainstream is controlled. Dahh. |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
Government conspiracies are , ], ], and people ignoring such possibilities... well... go figure.. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*:This article only contains the facts not the fiction. For the article on fiction go see ]. That article contains all the fiction you can handle. ] ]</font> 14:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::It appears you can't handle some facts. Pity. Truth is often enlightening. ] (]) 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::funny thing is, the truth i am talking about is that there are reliable notable and NPOV:DUE alternative views and questions to be placed into this article... and you know that i am sure.. the fact that you want them removed shows your fear... so my question is what are you afraid of? people who are afraid of discussion with others of opposing views remain closed into their small and limited world-views. |
|
|
|
|
|
::"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." |
|
|
::we are at the third stage now.. well, you try to do second, but actually we are at third. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all == |
|
::You really think because information is not in this article that it will not reach people? How funny is that? |
|
|
|
{{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)}} |
|
::] (]) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (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. |
|
::: Please, as a unregistered IP editor, take your soapboxing to the appropriate page page ] and leave the facts to those confirmed users who genuinely contribute to the articles. Case closed. ] (]) 13:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
:::David Johnson, you don't speak for me. I agree that the section on conspiracy theories in this article should be larger. There has been much mention of those theories and the people who believe them in the media. This article does not currently contain information on that topic in proportion to its coverage in the media. ] (]) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (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 ] == |
|
::::Quite simply, and as mentioned above, there is already a article for "conspiracy theories" and that's where these "contributions" belong and not on a factual page. Misplaced Pages deals in facts and not theories. Once again: case closed. ] (]) 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
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 ] == |
|
* I agree with Cla68 on this. But I would also like to point out that there seems to be an astounding amount of ''facts'' that are deliberately left out of this article, and relegated to a sub-page. On the other hand, this article goes to greath lengths to highlight the role of ], bombarding the reader with excessive biographical details of attackers that may not be entirely relevant to 9/11. -] (]) |
|
|
|
] |
|
**This article is about facts, not crackpot conspiracies. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not facts, and thus do not warrant mention in any real detail here. Case closed. '''] ]''' 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
**Everybody, please remember that Misplaced Pages , ''by policy'' represents mainstream views on any subject, with minority views or fringe views given proportionately smaller or no coverage. See ], bearing in mind that the view that somebody other than the named conspirators carried out the attack is very decidedly a fringe point of view, as reflected in the scholarly accounts that Misplaced Pages uses for its sources. Please remember that the existence of other, proven conspiracies does not validate the notion that the events of 9/11 happened as a result of a governmental conspiracy, and that Misplaced Pages is not a sounding board or soapbox for conspiracy enthusiasts on any subject. That does not mean that the views of authoritative critics of the agencies that failed to prevent the attacks and the investigation process such as ], who, it should be noted, is not a Truther, should be excluded. Who screwed up and why is relevant: the problem is that there are few academic sources. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 16:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
**:The argument has never been about the lack of conspiracy theory coverage of this event on this website....the argument has always been about not covering the conspiracy theories in tremendous detail in this article. The primary issue we have always had was who we would reference and what level of detail we would go to. The conspiracy theory proponents always want more, so as far as where I stand I prefer no mention.--] 17:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 == |
|
The problem that I see with this article that any mention of FACTS not fitting into MAINSTREAM theory is excluded from the article. I am NOT talking about conspiracy theories, but about RELEVANT, RELIABLE, NOTABLE FACTS. Why is Richard Clark's statement irrelevant, or does not deserve WP:DUE ? Or transportation secretary's? And let me remind some that WP:DUE is a policy, while WP:FRINGE is a guideline. Case is not closed, as it gets reopened over and over by a number of good faith editors, and it gets unjustifiably 'closed' by people without counter arguments. ] (]) 01:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The problem I'm seeing with your proposal is that any mention of theories not fitting into real facts would be included in the article. ] (]) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}} |
|
== why is ICTS not mentioned in this HUGE article? == |
|
|
|
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 it is highly relevant as they are to blame for some of the oversight and letting the terrorist onto planes... |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
] (]) 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}} |
|
:Whenever there is an accident or disaster, someone is always to blame...lawyers make sure of it.--] 16:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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)