Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 → Archive 50

THIS ARTICLES NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED

STOP REMOVING THE NEUTRALITY DISPUTED SYMBOL. You are not allowed until the issue has been resolved. And it has NOT. End of story. (MavereX (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

"I'm right and you are wrong and if you don't agree with me I will abuse my caps lock key" --Tarage (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Then let's resolve the issue. Start by identifying it. Peter Grey (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no issue. He deleted a cited, sourced portion of the article and then slapped a neutrality tag on it. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how we have Enlisted and Discharged US Military Personnel (VegitaU for example) Watching this page closely and reverting simple things like that the neutrality of this page is disputed. I did that because if you look at this talk page the NEUTRALITY IS DISPUTED. But no, I get threatened that my editing rights will be revoked. This is ridiculous. SHAME ON YOU WIKIPEDIA! Shame on you for having such a rigged article, and deeming it a "good article". This page is against everything Wikipedia stands for. Believing the Official story and only the Official story when it has more holes than the USS Liberty [1] I Am Deeply Disturbed that we have Biased US Soldiers hovering over this page protecting it. They should be removed THEIR editing rights. --MavereX (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be Deeply Disturbed if we listened to people who Capitalize Random Words in Their Sentences. (For what it's worth, I'm one of those who would have warned you about the 9/11 Arbcomm decision, and I have not had any military services. I don't think anyone threatened you.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's called capitalizing words to EMPHASIZE MEANING. If that causes you to be deeply disturbed because you think its random, then you must have a severe issue. And yes, I was threatened that if I edit the page in such a way that says the POV is not neutral, that I would be revoked my rights of editing, as it says on my talk page. "This is your final warning" Is a threat. --MavereX (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean, there was meaning there? Perhaps you can explain some meaning which is consistent with Wikipedia policies, rather than your instance that your reopening a previously settled dispute allows restoration of the WP:NPOV tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote from WP:NPOV

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Well it is fairly obvious that there is a different viewpoint than from the official story.. and quickly it is growing to not be a minority. If you looked there is not so many hundreds of "conspiracy theories" anymore.. There has been research done and then there's plain facts that help bring this POV to light. It is simply amazing that in world history, no steel structure building has succumbed to fire. Yet we have 3 buildings destruct in virtual freefall, in their own footprint, due to "Fire". It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong there. Why are you admins collectively avoiding such reality? --MavereX (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Examples of buildings which did not collapse from fire:

In February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. [2]

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. [3]

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse.[4]

In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. [5]

So we have a fire burn for 56 minutes and collapse WTC1.. simply amazing. Even when It was rated to withstand multiple Boeing 707 Collisions at 600mph[6][7][8][9][10]--MavereX (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Oh wait.. But what about an aircraft and fire? Empire state building had that happen.. oh look it still stands today! [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MavereX (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because copy/pasting talking points from conspiracy theory web pages is totally a reliable source. Request for archival of this. --Tarage (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

YES, bbc and cbs news are conspiracy theory web pages! Aren't you intelligent. Way to go brushing off such a deep issue!! --MavereX (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to reinforce ignorance; superstition and verifiable facts will not be put on an equal footing. Peter Grey (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it amusing how "Tarage" doesn't really say anything to do with the issue at hand, but strives to condemn any evidence which is given to therefore make the article an unbiased, even, equal or balanced article. If every (i didn't put that in capitals because it appears you have some form of mental obsession with them) other steel building doesn't collapse under a fire, and the Empire State Building doesn't collapse under a fire and an aircraft impact, then i don't see why two of the former tallest buildings of the world would be built any weaker than any of the buildings on MavereX's reliable list. I also find the fact that when the first World Trade Center attacks happened, when a truck was driven into the base of the building, aiming to take out a key foundation, to the make it collapse, it still stood, it may have shaken a bit, but it didn't collapse; so how, did the World Trade Center collapse under an impact so high up in the building? I would like to know why Wikipedia is contradicting itself aswell, it is asking for articles to be fair, unbiased etc. but it allows one of the most disputed events of modern history to be made into a 100% biased article towards the "Official Story" (i like the word story, it is used for so many things, i.e. fiction), there is nothing in the article about alternative theories, because that is what every explanation is, a theory, this includes the "Official Story", it is just a theory. Brock (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've warned User:Brocky9 about soapboxing and the ArbCom ruling. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name and opening sentence

Of course this article needs a name. However, in coining the name of the article, we do not need to use the name like a title of a TV episode for the introductory paragraph of this article. There is no uniform name for the attacks, unlike an editor who says that the War of 1812 is a name (which is true but differs from this, which has no uniform name yet).

Even the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/september11/ does not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". Also see http://www.whitehouse.gov/september11/index.html

To now degenerate the intro into a TV episode or a goofy news story where there is theme music and a made up title/name (tonight's episode "Standdown with Saddam" or "Inferno in Iraq") is not very encyclopedic.

Let's just say something like "On September 11, 2001, there was a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in ......." Presumptive (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad suggestion. First, they're called the September 11, 2001 attacks and secondly, your proposed wording violates our manual of style. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What part of his suggestion violates what part of the manual of style, ICB? That's a pretty large article. -- Wowest (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the part that deals with article names, Wowest. And Presumptive, you may want to read this as well. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interim conclusion:
1. There is a consensus on the title, discussed in 2004 in archive 3. There is no opposition above.
2. There is consensus to follow the Manual of Style.

New information:
MOS says "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".

Archive 3 shows that there is no agreed upon title but that there was a vote on the best way to summarize the event. Furthermore, even the U.S. White House does not use the Wikipedia title name. the WP title is a made up title, much like a title of a TV episode. The use of the title in the introductory sentence is awkward and makes it appear like a TV episode.

As a result, I am changing the title temporarily until there is a discussion to why we want an awkward introductory sentence instead of a scholarly one. Presumptive (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Furthermore, the old intro was poor prose. Using the word to define the word is bad and very amateurish. "The attacks were a series of coordinated attacks..." Why not "A car is a kind of car"? Presumptive (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks is a commonly accepted name and should be bold. Point one of your "interim conclusion" is based on a discussion that took place three years ago, and point two is an amusing straw man argument. You've misinterpreted a portion of the manual of style and then suggested that we support it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The bad prose reason is a good reason. One should not use define a word using the same word.
"is a commonly accepted name" is not true. There was much debate in 2004 here. Rather than revert, think of alternate wordings. That's what I am doing. Presumptive (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"Commonly accepted name" refers to reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors (although I suspect that the name is commonly accepted by Wikipedia editors as well). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

History:
There were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States often referred to as September 11, 2001 attacks, 9/11, or simply described without a proper name [1]

On September 11, 2001 attacks took place in the United States by al-Qaeda against high profile targets in the United States (often referred to as 9/11).

On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Presumptive (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to flat-out suggest the following and see where the discussion goes:
"The September 11, 2001 attacks were a coordinated series of four airline hijackings, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people from around the world. The attacks are so-named because they all occurred within the span of a few hours on the morning of September 11, 2001."
Yes, it's two sentences, and my punctuation may not be exactly correct, but let's work with that for starters. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the current version better. The first sentence should describe the attacks. Your proposed wording suggests that the attacks were the result of the hijackings, which is only partially true, of course. The "people from all around the world", although true, is misleading. The attacks were on the United States, regardless of the nationality of the victims. The second sentence is completely unnecessary. It would add nothing to the article.
It has been suggested that we are using the name of the subject to define itself. This is simply not true. We are not saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of attacks on September 11, 2001, which would be using the subject to define itself. We are saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks... We are describing the type of attacks that occurred on that date, which is acceptable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the opening sentence of this article, and the suggestions that there is something wrong with it have been nothing but silly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has a name. The name is the one ordinarily given to the attacks described in the article. To begin the article in a manner such as "There were a series of coordinated attacks... on Ssept 11, 2001" removes the specific focus of the article. Articles do not get written about events without names. The proper name of the article is the one it has & the article's task is to describe what the September 11, 2001 attacks were. --JimWae (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • RE:"::"The September 11, 2001 attacks were a coordinated series of four airline hijackings, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people from around the world."
    • Why not mention WHERE they happened? Why not mention what the clear target & purpose was? "Hijackings" barely begins to describe the event - There were no "hostages", the airlines were used as missiles against the financial, cultural, political & military centers of the US (and by extension, by threat & by action, the entire Western world - and more). The events of that day have produced changes that impact the lives of nearly everyone -- and definitely of every air-traveller. Why are people intent on minimizing an event that seems already to be a landmark event of the century, an event that also led to US responses that are covered in newscasts world-wide daily? Name 4 (or even one) other comparable "hijackings".--JimWae (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not arguing with you on this point except to say that those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it. There was a great hijacking in the past. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings That was when there was simultaneous hijackings by the Black September group fighting for the liberation of Palestine cowardly hijacked a Pan Am, TWA, Swissair, ElAl, and later a (British) BOAC flight and later blew up 4 of the 5 planes. Guess what day the hostages were released? September 11th. This is their revenge. Presumptive (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Shocking? yes Dastardly? yes. Comparable in their effects? only slightly. --JimWae (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article's first sentence is original research and should be banned

{{SectOR}} This tag is in the article at the top.



{{RFC [topic] | section= Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks!! reason=Whether it is good or bad proses to use the word "attacks" to define "attack" and whether or not it is original research to use a wikipedia-created title in the introductory sentence rather than the terminology used by respected reliable sources such as CNN, CBC, CBS, and the BBC. !! time=02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)}}


I have looked at reliable sources, like the BBC, CBC, CBS, and CNN. They do NOT refer to the attacks as "September 11, 2001 attaks". Therefore, we are allowing original research. If one calls for OR too much, they can be banned from WP.

There needs to be a title of the article and a 2004 discussion chose the title. I do not dispute this. However, insistance that we use the title in the introduction (which is not required by the Manual of Style, just suggested in most cases) is Original Research as we are now calling the event by the artificial wikipedia name.

See the following:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/11/september11/main3250664.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/

None of these links refer to "September 11, 2001 attacks", just Wikipedia in an act of Original Research.

The proposed solution is to not use the original research title in the introduction. There are many, many ways to phrase the introduction in a NPOV way without OR. I will propose one way in the article. Presumptive (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really OR, there's plenty of news sources that use the phrase. [12]. (Just in the last 30 days) Please propose alternative wordings here. RxS (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Current wording:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Possible wording to eliminate OR:

On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

Another possible wording to eliminate OR, use the title without "The", but it is awkward:

September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) using hijacked aircraft took place in the United States by al-Qaeda operatives.

Using "The" makes it original research by creating a title for the event, a title that is not uniformly used. This use of a "TV episode name" is a common mistake in WP. It happens because some editors are interpreting the MOS too restrictively and combining it with a made up title. Presumptive (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The title is not uniformly used because it is a compromise of multiple styles. Check the archives. Peter Grey (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
As it is, this RFC is invalid to begin with - the issue is being presented in a way which promotes the original poster's point of view. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look here, I'll let you win the revert battle as I won't put back the OR tag for now. Removing it without resolution is a "no-no".

Google "September 11, 2001 attacks" and see what you get. The top article is Wikipedia. That's an indication of OR. Then look down the first page. Nobody else uses that phrase. There is no link to BBC, CNN, CBC, CBS, NBC.

The fact remains that we have to create a title. However, we need not use the exact title in the article as that creates original research because others don't use the exact phrase. Presumptive (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, see the link in my comments above. [13] Plenty of uses of that phrase (BBC for example). Not original research. RxS (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
They sometimes use "September 11 attacks" which is different. They also use it as a description, not as a title. For the home page of the event, they do not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". Presumptive (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
They "sometimes" call them a lot of things. And as I've shown, many times they call them September 11, 2001 attacks which makes your claim of OR inaccurate. RxS (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
By your non-existant "first google hit" original research test, the following article titles are OR: Niccolo Machiavelli, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Holocaust, 1992 Summer Olympics, Margaret Thatcher, Bread. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that "to Kill a Mockingbird" is not a news topic. September 11th is. Presumptive (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, how about this one? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBC DOES call them Sep 11 attacks - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/03/24/binladen040324.html --AND http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/04/08/condoleezza_911_040408.html JimWae (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of these links prove my point. They are NEVER referred to in these 2 links as "September 11, 2001 attacks". Only WP made this up...original research. You see, I am for precision and attention to detail...that will make WP great. Sloppiness and "almost accurate" is not good enough for WP and has no place here, just in myspace and facebook. Presumptive (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You are the only editor who has a problem with title, and now you've resorted to making the same points over and over again. Please just drop it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the title. However, given the original research creation of the title, we must abide by the Manual of Style and not require that the title be used with such bad prose. We must also not require that the original research phrase infect the introduction.
Sometimes in history, it is one man or one person who brings about positive change. If Jimbo Wales was run over as a kid, WP would probably not exist in its current form. One editor, Jimbo Wales, making a fuss created Wikipedia. So one editor is not all bad as you suggest. Presumptive (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For the last time, Wikipedia did not make the phrase up, it's in general use (as shown in links I provided above). It is not original research, period. You ignore the links given to you and focus only on the links that support your position. If you keep going down this road and continue to waste good editors time you'll end up topic banned (or worse). These articles are under very tight restrictions. RxS (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The links do not show the phrase "September 11, 2001 attacks" so it is original research. The few places that use this phrase use it as the object, not as the subject. Using it as a subject turns wikipedia into a parody of TV episode titles. The bottom line is that I have no objection to the article name but using the article name in the introduction is bad prose and inserts subtle original research. There are many, many good ways to re-word it. Threatening to ban people is just incivility. Others should look to productive ways and make suggestions. If we have a dozen suggestions, we could see which one is best. Likely, it will not be the current version. You see, I am flexible. Not pushing a specific version, just pointing out how to improve the article and taking out original research. Presumptive (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's another link for you.[14] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm speechless. Did you click on the link? How can you possibly say "The links do not show the phrase "September 11, 2001 attacks"? I'm done with this subject but do yourself a favor and read the link Ice Cold Beer provided. RxS (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Links that you provided refer to "9/11", "September 11 attacks", "September 11 terrorist attacks". Both links do not use the WP term "September 11, 2001 attacks". WP made it up in a WP vote so it is OR. It caught my attention because it is such awkward prose that it didn't fit it. Then, I discovered the subtle OR. Keep the title, I agree with you 1,000,000%. However, let's follow the manual of style which doesn't require use of the exact title in the intro sentence particularly if it is descriptive. Presumptive (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "both links". I linked to (several times) a google news search that shows multiple uses of the exact phrase September 11, 2001, attacks. RxS (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Presumptive, you're the only one who has a problem with this title. Your argument has been refuted by the consensus of every other editor. Stop pasting POV tags all over the article. -- Veggy (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The title and lede appear adequate to me, if a little wordy. The current wording is likely less common than shorter versions such as "9/11" or "September 11th", but our more specific version may be preferable here. I'm not seeing evidence of original research. Fletcher (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not research - Their date is widely known, but "September 11, 2001" is an inadequate title because that article should be about more than these attacks. Adding the word "attacks" sufficiently disambiguates the phrase, as well as being a common term for the attacks. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: The title is not in dispute (I accept that we must make up all titles). The use of the title in the first sentence is the dispute. This is because we are introducing a wikpedia made-up name different from the more common names. But say what you want as it's your opinion.Presumptive (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

new section on first sentence

In view of the debates, I propose that we list some recent sentences. Starting on July 28, 2008, we can comment on those listed. We can decide which ones are awkward and which ones are good. Before July 28, 2008, you can list some proposals. These dates are just suggestions. You can comment earlier and leave proposals later than the dates suggested. Presumptive (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

  • Poor choice of words/unacceptable prose. Technically correct but comma is unusual and makes the bolded part not the exact title. However, removing the comma creates a grammatical error, which is forbidden. Also defines "attack" with the same word which is bad prose. Presumptive (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Best choice As I've outlined above, there is nothing wrong with the prose. The possible title change is another matter. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

2. On September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) took place coordinated by al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.

  • Acceptable, not preferred. Technically correct but comma is unusual and makes the bolded part not the exact title. However, removing the comma creates a grammatical error, which is forbidden. Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bad Awkward prose. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3. (Title of article remains the same) On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States took place.

4. A series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States occured on September 11, 2001 and have been referred to by various names such as 9/11, September 11th attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks, etc.

  • Very good, however suggest reversing the order of prose so "Various names such as 9/11, September 11th attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks, and other names has been used to describe a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda in the United States on said date." Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely bad Violates WP:MOS, poor prose, terrible language use for the first sentence of an article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

5. (Title of article remains the same)
On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated hijackings by al-Qaeda operatives occured using hijacked commercial airliners to destroy high profile buildings in New York and Washington.

6. The September 11, 2001 attacks and 9-11 are one of several terms used to describe a series of coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.

  • Outstanding and preferred Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Terrible The first sentence is the most important sentence in an article. It states, clearly and concisely, what the subject of the article is. In this case, the first thing a reader learns is that The September 11, 2001, attacks is a term. This is an awful and unacceptable way to start the article. Also, there are two terms, not one. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

6b. The September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11th, and 9/11 are several terms used to describe a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda in the eastern United States on that date.

  • Outstanding and preferred This proposal incorporates some suggestions by Mr. Grey (below). Presumptive (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Terrible per my response below 6a. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

7. variations of the above with consideration of a discussion several sections above to whether "upon the United States" is proper.


Have you read WP:LEAD? -- Veggy (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#First_sentences mentions that there are times when the lead sentence will not contain the exact article name. Presumptive (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And how does this article fall under those exceptions? Are you just commenting on your own suggestions? -- Veggy (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Putting the article title, which is effectively simply a date, into the narrative genuinely does seem to be awkward in this case. Perhaps it would be best to not bother trying, with something like: The September 11 attacks (often referred to simply as September 11th or in the US as 9/11) were the al Qaeda suicide attacks on the United States which occurred on that date in 2001. Peter Grey (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After 13 days of discussion, version 6b, which incorporates added suggestions by Peter Grey, is now used as the introductory sentence in the article. To avoid edit warring, please refrain from changing the introductory sentence unless there is an adequate discussion of 10 or more days. We can change it but must not repetitively or frequently change it without discussion. Presumptive (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I see NO discussion of this since July 30th, no consensus for change, and several objections to proposed changes --JimWae (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Several proposals were made (above). One was added incorporating the opinion of Peter Grey. No objections were made. No new proposals made. If you have a proposal, mention it. There were objections to the current version, some not liking the comma and some saying that it is grammatically correct to have it. I am not opposed to change. Make some suggestions! After a week or more, we can change it to a new agreed version. That's better than one person changing it and another changing it 5 minutes later. Presumptive (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there have been numerous objections to changing the first sentence, and I don't really see consensus for the new opening sentence. I am reverting. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no consensus for this, Presumptive. Stop changing it. You obviously haven't read WP:LEAD. -- Veggy (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEAD states "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". Ask 100 people or 100 sources for the name of the event and only 0-1 source will say "September 11, 2001 attacks". Therefore, your comment proves that the other listed alternatives are acceptable. Presumptive (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be consensus over the comma and other things. So now that there is finally discussion, let's decide. Let the discussion begin. Please be civil. Presumptive (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The consensus is: The sentence is fine as is. That's why no one else has any issues with it. Maybe the article title needs to include the comma, but that's not what your problem is with. -- Veggy (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The current page protected version is far from fine. The comma must be restored to be grammatically correct if that version is to be used. The current version is not fine because it defines a word with the same word and also uses a term that is rarely used. Using the rarely used term as the title is ok with me but not to use it in such an awkward manner in the lead. Furthermore, there is no explanation on why the alternate compromise versions cannot be used. Presumptive (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've outlined above why the whole "defines word with same word" thing is a myth. I've explained above why each proposed new version is bad, and why the current one is the best. There comes a time when you'll have to accept that you won't get consensus for your changes. That time should be now. You've been told, repeatedly, that you have no consensus. You've edit warred against consensus, and as a result the page is now protected. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Warring requires two parties, therefore you edit warred because you claim there was edit warring. I simply changed to the consensus version. Your version had no consensus. The page protected version bucks consensus because the admin did not follow the consensus for the comma. Presumptive (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you can claim consensus when it appears that you are the only editor in support of your change. The comma issue is separate from your push to impose changes which stand in the face of the long agreed-upon version of the lead. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, it's you agains 4 or 5 editors, so, although edit warring requires more than one editor, you are the one who should be stopped. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Just adding my 2 cents, I am also against the proposed edit. The current wording is perfectly fine. --Tarage (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not insult Newark

I changed the name from Newark to Newark International as all the other airports were given the same courtesy except Newark. (near the beginning of the article).

Any disputes to this, you may discuss it here. Presumptive (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the edit, I don't see why you think we've insulted Newark. Please assume good faith. Also, uncontroversial edits (such as the one we're discussing) don't really need to be discussed on the talk page; a comment in your edit summary will suffice. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

strange double standards

I am a little confused as to why the following two articles manage to refrain from using the word terrorist, especially as they have both been recently edited by both vegita and ice cold beer, who are both very vocal in this talk page, in favour of using the term terrorist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

The two above articles refer to the people involved as hijackers (as requested for this article) however the above two editors seem to have no issue with the use of the word hijackers, apart from this particular article.

How is it that these articles use the term hijacker but this particular article cannot?

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also one is a featured article the best you can get on wiki. BigDuncTalk 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


even more strange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77 also refer to the people involved as hijackers - and both of those articles have also been edited recently by vegita.
Perhaps people understand that blatant POV would not be accepted on a featured article?
Can someone explain why the term hijacker seems to be totally acceptable in all four articles, but it not acceptable in this article? Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Also one of them has been edited on many occasions by a certain admin, who is quite vocal on this article, in support of using the term terrorist. However the same admin does not seem to care about the use of the term on the United Airlines Flight 175 article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an important distinction you haven't noticed. In 9/11-related articles, we always (with one exception I know of) refer to the men who hijacked the planes as "hijackers" and members of al-Qaeda (which includes people who did not hijack the planes) are "terrorists". So, there really isn't a double standard here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I consider all sections that use the term terrorist, without attributing its use to a particular person or organisation to be in breach of wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.

The POV tag should remain until we have come to some form of consensus. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you making a new section when you've already stated your opinion on the matter above? There is no consensus to remove the word terrorist and we won't let you hold the article hostage with the NPOV template. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The template is used for a reason. The POV of the article is under dispute. BTW why did you not complain about the use of the term hijacker in the other articles related to 9/11 that you edited? feel free to take a look at the section above this one and give me an opinion. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
My objection is to the removal of terrorist. I haven't complained about the use of the term hijacker. In fact, that word appears just three sentences into this article (and I don't have a problem with that). Of course, I don't need to tell you that; I'm sure that you've taken the time to read the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the talk page archives. The issue has been discussed before and the consensus is that the word terrorist belongs. Furthermore, this article is a good article, having been reviewed for quality, neutrality, etc. Do not change the article unless you get consensus here on the talk page. I don't see any consensus for changing the article. --Aude (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have read the archives, the is no clear consensus, there is merely a history of edit waring. There is an ongoing discussion on this article at the moment relating to the NPOV (or lack of) in this article. The POV tag clearly states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." next time you see a POV tag, and there is a discussion in progress relating to POV, please do not remove it. It was not an attempt at vandalism, or me trying to prove a point it was use of a tag within the rules and spirit of the rules. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There IS a clear consensus for inclusion. There is a consensus that there is a clear consensus for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, consensus can change. It might be better to argue this one on its merits than refer to a previous consensus. --John (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Arthur are you trying to say that you are right because you say that you are right? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW Arthur, if you feel the including the term terrorist improves the article, why didn't you push for its inclusion on the other 9/11 related article you were editing? Surely pushing for its inclusion, just because you think there are rules that back up your case, while not considering it to be the best term, would be gaming wikipedia? But then again, if you did consider it to be the best term for the article, why did you happily edit another 9/11 article that used the term hijacker instead of terrorist, without trying to change it? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this line of questioning is productive. This isn't a courtroom drama. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So Ice Cold Beer, if you consider the inclusion of the term terrorist to be so important, why don't you care about the lack that exact term in the other 9/11 related article that you edited? It does not matter if a term is removed, added or appears by magic, as far as the quality of the article is concerned what matters is only if the word is in the article or not. The word terrorist seems to mean so much to you on this article, yet you don't care if it is omitted on another 9/11 related article? Why is that? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I would answer this, but this talk page is for discussing this article. What you're bringing up is totally irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This arguing over a single word has got completely out of hand. Clearly talk page discussion is going nowhere - if it's that important, consider pursuing Wikipedia:Requests for comment or the like.

I request that all editors who have a problem with the wording of the article provide arguments as to why their request should be given more weight than all the previous requests that have requested the exact same thing. If they cannot, they should step aside. --Tarage (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That Stupid Comma

Before I left for the day, I noticed a tiny edit that's actually indicative of a bigger problem. I've checked the Chicago Manual and Diane Hacker's Writer's Reference. It's true—a comma is supposed to go after a date in the Month DD, YYYY format. Not sure how to fix that besides changing the article title, (no, not to "September 11, 2001", Presumptive) but it is something that's technically grammatically incorrect. Maybe someone can point me to the proper policy regarding this. Peace out. -- Veggy (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me! I have no argument about the title. I only think this is a case that the lead sentence should not use the article title because of bad prose and because of subtle original research as the article title is slightly different from commonly used phrases and was made up by a wikipedia vote. Presumptive (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn that you only need the comma when the date is at the end of a prepositional phrase. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I just skimmed through the manual of style and I didn't see anything regarding the use of commas after dates. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's normally problematic because of wikilinked dates; the comma is correct in one format and not correct in the others -- except in some cases where the comma always needs to be present (as in "Today, 24 July 2008, is a sad day!"). The code that munges wikilinked dates doesn't (and probably can't) take all the possible scenarios into account, so the traditional response is to punt and not say anything one way or the other. (Several discussions on the WT:MOSDATE talk page bear this out.) This situation is different, though, because the date is not wikilinked, so we know for sure that the comma belongs. Powers T 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're saying that the title of this entry should be punctuated "September 11, 2001, attacks," you are correct. Here are some examples of reliable sources using that punctuation: The 9/11 Commission Report, Preface at xv: "September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States." New York Times, June 24, 2006, A3: "majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey . . . said, for example, that they did not believe that Arabs had carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States"; New York Times, June 19, 2006, A11: "The United States said a small cell of Al Qaeda, made up of foreigners, had set up shop in Mogadishu after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and were being protected by court leaders"; New York Times, April 30, 2006, 44: "Mr. Deutch also began to require special approval for the use of unsavory characters as agency informants -- a policy suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when officers argued that only terrorists would know of plans for the next attack."
That usage is correct because the year is parenthetical in the Month/day/year American format. (See the wikipedia entry on Commas or any American usage manual.) The issue has been raised several times on this talk page (including once by me), but it was never resolved. I pretty much gave up on it, to tell you the truth. Other options would be to retitle as "September 11 attacks" or "11 September 2001 attacks" (the British format).Lowell33 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
He's right. It looks to be an issue of WP:MOS > Chicago Manual of Style and Writer's Reference? -- Veggy (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a title change is in order. The "11 September 2001 attacks" doesn't work because it violates the manual of style regarding dates, in that American dates should be used for American subjects. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Someone should tell that to the 7 July 2005 London bombings people. -- Veggy (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nvm, American events, gotcha. -- Veggy (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The comma is undesirable, IMV—I'd remove it throughout for better flow, with utterly no sacrifice in clarity. The date format should definitely be US; may I suggest three good reasons for removing all date autoformatting: (1) autoformatting is now optional (see MOSNUM), and numerous articles do not use it now; (2) the title is iconic and well-known throughout the world in its US format (it looks very odd to see month and day reversed here); and (3) it crowds out the high-value links, especially in sentences that are already heavily linked, such as "Early in the morning on September 11, 2001, the hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to California from Logan International, Dulles International, and Newark International airports." Tony (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You may find it undesirable, but it's still grammatically correct. Powers T 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note, that you are trying to add punctuation that is usually applied to sentences, to a title. That is, if you are writing a sentence, and the sentence is about the September 11, 2001, attacks, you should do as I. For a title, I'd not worry about that, and instead worry about capitalizing the A in attacks. I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines suggest capitalizing the first and last words, but it would be correct grammar as I know it. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a huge issue. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this argument before, but it's never made any sense to me. Why should a particular principle of grammar apply in the body of an article but not in the title? Is there some reason to treat them differently?Lowell33 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not pull all the commas out from the title - "September 11 2001 attacks"? It's still a compromise of incompatible styles and just as correct/incorrect as the other variations. Peter Grey (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I follow that, Peter. Right now it's missing one comma. If we change it so it's missing two commas, isn't that actually twice as incorrect?Lowell33 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it's incorrect depends on the rules of style used and the interpretation. "2001 September 11th attacks" works with certain rules as well. The point is every variation is some kind of compromise. Peter Grey (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

suggested external link

The Ken Feinberg interview, 30 mins, ABC Radio National, 15 July 2008. The emotional and legal aspects of allocating the $7 bn compensation for the victims, under the Congressional act. The audio stream is online for another two weeks; the transcript is permanently downloadable. I don't hang about this page, so if people want to add it, please do. Tony (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive this now...

Congratulations, we have officially broken the boarder. I suggest we archive these more lengthy 'debates' and move on. I for one am sick of arguing about single words and commas. --Tarage (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If a debate is still ongoing, then I wouldn't archive it. That is, if it's gotten a comment in the past week, the debate should not be archived. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the border seems to be "broken" by mixed use of markup.
Some people use the following for tabbed bullets:
*This is a bullet.
**This is a tabbed bullet.
  • This is a bullet.
    • This is a tabbed bullet.
Others use the following:
*This is a bullet.
:*This is a tabbed bullet.
  • This is a bullet.
  • This is a tabbed bullet.
I believe the top version is correct. That is, I believe you shouldn't mix the ":" and the "*." Anyway, when you mix the two, that is when two editors use two different version, the page gets broken. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, my comments above does describe some bad formatting, but the reason the border is broken is because the code box does not word wrap. It's the statement "The official government report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is a notable event almost certain to take place," which is in a code box, which doesn't wrap. —Slipgrid (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no "See also" section?

I wanted to add 2009 New York City airplane scare to the "See also" section, but there is no such section. Why is that? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because there was nothing to link to that is not already linked within the article itself? I will create one and add the 2009 New York City airplane scare incident article to it as it is clearly related.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_43&oldid=1140263071"