Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Requested move 26 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks → 9/119/11 – As the article states, the attacks are commonly known as “9/11”, most people refer to it as “9/11”, other articles about it on Wikipedia itself have “9/11” in the title such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 truth movement, and the United States Government’s commission into the attacks and that commission’s report on the attacks refer to it as “9/11”. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Are they really commonly known as “9/11”, everywhere, by everyone? I don't refer to it as “9/11”, but you see, I'm not American. I doubt if anyone else I know refers to it as “9/11”. There is a major problem with that name for this GLOBAL encyclopaedia. To me, and to almost everyone outside the USA, 9/11 means the 9th of November. I believe we need to keep the more explicit, globally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11". Not only is "9/11" a common colloquial term, but it has also been officially adopted in various contexts. As MountainDew20 pointed out, both the United States Government's commission and its report on the attacks use the term "9/11." This lends official credibility to the usage of the term. Since other articles related to the September 11th attacks already use "9/11" in their titles, it makes sense to align the main article's title with this established convention. Also, being as this was a terrorist attack based in America, it should titled what it is referred to as in America. Yes, this is a global encyclopedia, but it is formatted mostly in American format. For instance, look up "color". The article is in the American format, instead of "colour". Same for "potato chip". Also, while the term "9/11" may have originated in the United States, it has become globally recognized and widely used to refer to the September 11th attacks. This term has transcended national boundaries and is commonly understood by people around the world. Using "9/11" in the title can actually enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. Many individuals, especially those who are not native English speakers, might naturally search for "9/11" when looking for information about the attacks, given its widespread usage. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and widely recognized information. If "9/11" is the commonly used and understood term, it serves the encyclopedia's mission to use that term as the title for the article. Pmealer126 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Everyone that I know of refers to this attack as "9/11".

Your personal experience is not a WP:RS for making changes to Wikipedia articles. Again, the problem is that moving this article to "9/11" introduces too much ambiguity and makes it more difficult for users to find this article, we would have to disambiguate the article. Such a move does not enhance the accessibility and searchability of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As HiLo points out, moving it to 9/11 would just mean confusing it with the actual date scheme. This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME falls afoul of making things more confusing and harder to find the correct article. So I have to say Oppose to this proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per HandThatFeeds. I'm also not convinced it is the common name outside of being a colloquialism. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica. I agree we can use the shorter form for some of the subtopics see Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Requested move 31 January 2022 but I think the main article should use the full term even though its primary for the number term with the slash. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — Colloquialism. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — Colloquialism. And early WP:SNOW close In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — far too colloquial and I really can't think of any other attacks that happened on that date that the September 11 attacks could be reasonably mistaken for. Hmm1994 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Too informal. trainrobber >be me 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:ElijahPepe, User:In ictu oculi, User:Hmm1994 and User:Trainrobber66. JIP | Talk 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Sidebar article expansion

Thoughts on expanding this sidebar to related articles? trainrobber >be me 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: It has snowed heavily today. Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacksSeptember 11 terrorist attacks – They're terrorist attacks, so why not extend the name so everyone knows that it's terrorism? WP:CONCISE GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Incredulous oppose. Because of the superfluity of "terrorist", that's why not. You prop up your plea for lengthening the title by citing WP:CONCISE, which says "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area". Uh-huh. I suggest that "September 11 attacks" (i) is brief, and (ii) provides sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SNOW close. There's no ambiguity with the original wording (at least not one that would be solved by the addition of the word "terrorist", as other attacks on other September 11s have also involved terrorists), and if sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area is the goal (per the comment above) I'd say that criteria is already met – this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not sure how WP:CONCISE can be cited to lengthen a title. — Czello ^(music) 12:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. As for other articles with this name, this is ambiguously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A read of WP:CONCISE, which was linked in the move rationale without elaboration, appears to solidly refute such a move. - Aoidh (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and SNOW close. There's nothing confusing here, and citing CONCISE is... bizarre, considering you're making the title longer, while clarifying nothing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This brings completely unnecessary clarity. In addition, the fact they were terrorist attacks is already mentioned in the first sentence, so any confusion as to whether it is a government attack or a terrorist attack is rapidly shut down during almost any readers first read through. On top of that, if the new title goes in the opening sentence, it simply clutters up the sentence by repeated information. In general it is an unnecessary change, and this argument should be shut down. I would agree with applying WP:SNOW in this case. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Snow Oppose, the September 11 attacks are a widely known common name. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose- Common name and what is is mostly called LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Britannica as noted above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, the current is common and the proposed may be WP:OVERPRECISE and less WP:CONCISE, all just to emphasise the type of attack. DankJae 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

“United States” in lead

Should the “United States” in the lead be a link to the U.S.’s article, being the first mention of the country in the page? Jackvoeller (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Why, is it likly people will need to know what we mean? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopedia, we can't assume that everyone knows what the United States is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely you are not serious? (Note: I live in the opposite side of the world to the US).14.2.196.234 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. Wikipedia can't make any assumption about its readers other than that they are literate in English. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone literate in English knows what the United States is. We do not assume our readers are completely ignorant of the world, WP:SKYBLUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That has to do with citations, not linking. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's the same concept. We don't need to link to the United States, in an article about an attack against the United States, in the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"At morning"

In the intro section, the sentence that begins "At morning," doesn't quite read clearly to American English readers. Just a suggestion that it be changed to "That morning" or "In the morning" or a similarly appropriate substitute. 2601:CD:4000:610:F435:89A0:E7C4:EA0B (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Goszei (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

change in a "passenger revolt" to "what was most likely a passenger revolt" As it cannot be 100% confirmed if it was a passenger revolt or a malfunction of the plane. Pinkgarfunkel (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a passenger revolt, so that's what we go by. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

New WTC *complex*

Second to last sentence in last paragraph of introduction implies that only Tower #1 was rebuilt and does not mention Towers 3, 4 and the incomplete Tower 2. Link to the page for the whole complex and mention there are multiple towers on the site now - a lot of people don't seem to realize that... Ee100duna (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Building 3, 4, and the Performing Arts Center are mentioned in section 6.1; additionally, there is a link to the new complex at the heading section of that section. I don't feel like it's really necessary to mention these buildings in the opening paragraph. However, I do feel like that perhaps something along the line of "reconstruction of the World Trade Center complex commenced..." or something to that effect. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos changed without consensus

I don't know who changed the photos in the Infobox, but the new photos look horrendous. I can't find any consensus in archive for this massive change, may we please revert back to original photos? Cena332 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s okay to change photos over time, but they should certainly be discussed here first, especially for this article. PascalHD (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC
• 3rd row, left to right: A firefighter requests
  assistance at World Trade Center site;
  An engine from Flight 93 is recovered
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

PascalHD These new photos were not discussed and just changed without any discussion, previously editors discussed photos changes to the Infobox on this article talk page first. Is it ok to add the old ones back until editors can have a agreement if we want to change. --Cena332 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is normal procedure to revert a change that was not discussed when necessary.PascalHD (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

just done. Cena332 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2024

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

---

September 11 attacks → 9/119/11 – More people call it 9/11. I rarely hear people say, "September 11 attacks". Merv Mat (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Merv Mat (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamist

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox photos

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

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

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

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

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

Massoud warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we change the infobox photos?

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

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

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

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

There are no clear images of an attack in progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus required restriction now in place

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

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

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

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

I just reverted changes that were made without consensus. Please discuss here. Butterscotch5 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2024

the use of “islamist” in the introduction and in the “attack type” in the overview is subjective, offensive and unnecessary. the information and impact of the attack will remain the same without that label. pointing towards one specific group will not diminish what happened on 9/11 - their islamic religion had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred.

“The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[f] were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. That morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners scheduled to travel from the East Coast to California. The hijackers crashed the first two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, two of the world's five tallest buildings at the time, and aimed the next two flights toward targets in or near Washington, D.C., in an attack on the nation's capital. The third team succeeded in striking the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania during a passenger revolt. The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people, making them the deadliest terrorist attack in history. In response to the attacks, the United States waged the multi-decade, global War on Terror to eliminate hostile groups deemed as terrorist organizations, as well as the foreign governments purported to support them. Conflicts were fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and several other countries, under this justification”.

the impact is exactly the same, and u will not be marginalising people while trying to send the impact across to the next person. Saturnraindrops (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you Dalremnei under a new account? — Czello ^(music) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You do know that "Islamist" and "Islamic" are different, right? Have a look at Islamism if you are not familiar with it. Muslims are not necessarily Islamist. While there are some moderate elements within this broadly political-religious movement, Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (and others) represent its more extreme manifestation. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2024

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

---

• September 11 attacks → 9/11
• Reactions to the September 11 attacks → Reactions to 9/11
• Motives for the September 11 attacks → Motives for 9/11
• Planning of the September 11 attacks → Planning of 9/11
• Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks → Timeline for 9/11
• Media documentation of the September 11 attacks → Media documentation of 9/11
• Casualties of the September 11 attacks → Casualties of 9/11
• Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks → Lists of victims of 9/11
• U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks → U.S. military response during 9/11
• Communication during the September 11 attacks → Communication during 9/11
• U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks → U.S. government response to 9/11
• Detentions following the September 11 attacks → Detentions following 9/11
• Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks → Health effects arising from 9/11
• Economic effects of the September 11 attacks → Economic effects of 9/11
• Cultural influence of the September 11 attacks → Cultural influence of 9/11
• List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks → List of cultural references to 9/11
• Entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks → Entertainment affected by 9/11
• Airport security repercussions due to the September 11 attacks → Airport security repercussions due to 9/11
• Legal issues related to the September 11 attacks → Legal issues related to 9/11
• Trials related to the September 11 attacks → Trials related to 9/11

9/11 is more commonly used than September 11 attacks. 2600:1700:6180:6290:1C26:EFE8:3894:862E (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed again and again, with no consensus to move. See the top of this page and the archives. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I oppose. I read 9/11 as 9⁄11. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - "9/11" is a colloquial shortening; the formal name is "September 11 attacks", and being an encyclopedia, the formal is more appropriate. As long as the redirect goes here we're good. Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close. This has been discussed previously and no new arguments are being presented here. — Czello ^(music) 11:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal to remove use of word Islamist in September 11 attacks wiki

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.

---

I'm proposing removing the word Islamist on ground it is a Loaded language, MOS:RACIST,WP:NPOV. It is currently used in lead paragraph, short description (Islamist terror attacks in the United States).

The word “Islamist” is often considered a loaded word. It carries connotations and implications that vary widely depending on context, audience, and can evoke strong emotions or judgments. Originally, “Islamist” referred to individuals or groups advocating for the implementation of Islamic law and governance based on Islamic principles. However, since September 11 attacks, especially in Western media and political discourse, the term has become associated with extremism and terrorism. This shift has led to a broad and often negative interpretation of the word, conflating peaceful political movements with violent extremism.

The use of “Islamist” can thus be seen as pejorative and can perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims, suggesting that any form of political Islam is inherently radical or violent. This broad-brush approach fails to recognize the diversity within political Islam and the distinction between moderate, political, and extremist elements.

Moreover, the term can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements or parties within Muslim-majority countries that seek to engage in the democratic process while adhering to Islamic values. As a result, the use of “Islamist” requires careful consideration of context and intent to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and contributing to Islamophobia.

The term lacks a precise definition and can be used to describe a broad spectrum of beliefs and behaviors. This ambiguity can lead to overgeneralization and misrepresentation of diverse groups and individuals. The term’s ambiguity further contributes to its loaded nature. For some, Islamist simply denotes a political ideology, comparable to terms like “capitalist” or “socialist.” For others, it implies a threat to secular governance and Western values, which can stoke fear and prejudice. This duality can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations, impacting public opinion and policy.

Using Islamist here can inadvertently contribute to Islamophobia, fostering a monolithic and negative view of Islam and its followers. However, due to its frequent misuse and the heavy baggage it carries, “Islamist” is indeed a loaded word, it must be employed with care requiring careful and context-specific application to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or unjustly maligning individuals and groups. Gsgdd (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you're worried that the perpetrators of 9/11 are tarred with a word "associated with extremism and terrorism", a word that has "often negative interpretation", is "pejorative" and which "can be used to de-legitimize legitimate political movements". Er...Oppose, obviously. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If that's what you understood - maybe read it again without prejudice. Ty Gsgdd (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should have given greater thought to your proposal before publication. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the concern is tarring Islamists in general unjustly. An Islamist is merely someone who abides by one of any manner of political Islam. Turkey's government is Islamist. That term alone does not imply political extremism, militancy, or any of the other traits. Since the "war on terror", it is however true that false opprobrium has been foisted on the term "Islamist", with naive and ignorant commentators using it interchangeably with terms like "jihadist". Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

correct. The attacks on September 11, were carried out by the extremist group al-Qaeda, which is driven by a specific radical interpretation of Islam. The term "Islamism" broadly refers to political movements that seek to implement Islamic law and principles in governance. While not all forms of Islamism endorse violence, the ideology behind al-Qaeda is a militant form of Islamism that promotes jihadist terrorism. Currently i think the use of Islamist in short desc and lead violates wiki NPOV.

The motivation behind the 9/11 attacks was complex and rooted in a variety of factors, including geopolitical grievances, a reaction against U.S. foreign policy, and an extremist worldview that justified the use of violence to achieve its aims. It is important to distinguish between Islam as a religion and the specific radical ideologies that drove the 9/11 attackers. It should not be shortened just to Islamist without context Gsgdd (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing unjust about it. Islamists are little different than Dominionists or Zionists when it comes down to it, and Wikipedia doesn't sugarcoat those ideologies. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather than call out the people who commit acts of violence, you propose not identifying these people in hopes that the next terrorist is not identified. I think the kkk and white men werena target for a while. I hear no mention of re-branding the kkk 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Briefly, why is this an RFC? Has it been discussed before? If not, perhaps remove the RFC template and just have a normal discussion. On the merits, yes, Al-Qaeda is more specifically and aptly a "jihadist" organization, which is much more specific than mere "Islamist", which just means anyone inclined to political Islam. Other applicable terms could be militant Islamist or Islamic extremist, but "jihadist" more or less covers all of those bases, so job done! Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Job not done. Multiple RS refer to the attackers as Islamist. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, but we don't want just what any old multiple RS say. We want what the best in-depth analysis of Al-Qaeda now state. But in any case, why wouldn't you want to specify that it was a specifically militant Islamist or jihadist attack? What is wrong with greater specificity? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a question of WP:DUE. I think "jihadist" is less used than "Islamist" and I doubt that "islamist" generally requires further specificity in the context of 9/11. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because its widely used in RS doesn't mean its okay. After 9/11 emotions were high - and western media used the word negatively and continues to do since. Thats why i think it is loaded word, and MOS:RACIST Im also do not support using militant Islamist. It still do not address my concerns. It just adding word militant before Islamist. Gsgdd (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. "because it's widely used in RS" is exactly why it's ok in Wikipedia. Your personal objections to the word are irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but "militant Islamist" clarifies that violent "militant Islamism" is beyond the general concept of Islamism, just as a "political extremist" is something beyond a normal political actor. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this? Instead of "Islamist suicide terrorist attack", where "suicide terrorist attack" is a piped link to just "suicide attack", we un-pipe that link, and clarify that it's an Islamist terrorist suicide attack? Same words. Better order. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also advocating for ending the association of religion with terrorism. When a Christian commits an act of terrorism, we do not label it as “Christian terrorism,” nor do we call it a “Hindu terrorism” when a Hindu does the same. Millions of people read Wikipedia, and we should stop promoting Islamophobia and religious hatred. Islamism isnt the cause of 9/11. that's what the article is saying. Gsgdd (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This comes down to sources. In any case, the argument for what you suggest would need to be made at Islamic terrorism, not here, if at all. Incidentally, Hindu terrorism does exist as a page too. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist or to Islam in lead paragraph and short description without context and explanation. This isnt about the concept of Islamic terrorism which can exist independently Gsgdd (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That's absurd. That's exactly what the RS do associate it with. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well? Gsgdd (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? It's fundamental to being a Wikipedia editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

yes - did you read Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth Gsgdd (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think I first read it in about 2010. Why? It's quite ironic for you to raise it which makes me think you haven't understood it, or understood any of the fundamentals of our approach to editing. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

i think, there is more to it than you think. for eg. it say "In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible"

It says "This word has multiple meanings, and the relevant one is "The point at which an action is triggered, especially a lower limit." This means the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability" it means to me, that is not the right standard, just the minimum

It also talk about Truth being subjective. "Here we prioritize facts over subjective truths." Gsgdd (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Your grabbing at tiny out of context straws to ignore what that essay is shouting out you. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd: You could have left my middle ground edit in place while continuing to discuss. You're really not building a consensus coalition here. But as you will: now "Islamist" is back in place. Great result all round. Good job. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 i appreciate your discussions. But your edit doesn't address my concern. It should stay in place - until i can get more eyes from neutral editors. Changing it right now, may prevent editors from understanding my points. Gsgdd (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really, because you could still keep objecting to the word Islamist even after me edit, which incidentally was also about resolving a piping issue, which you have now re-crapped up again. You are unlikely to gain consensus to remove any mention of anything related to Islamic ideology when the perpetrators here were motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources are also not with you. You have to separate what you want from what is realistic based on sources and policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to try. It may be okay to explain it with context. What's not okay is blindly calling Sept 11 attack as Islamist. Short in description reads Islamist terror attacks in the United States. Are you saying this is inline with wiki policies ? Gsgdd (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is about associating a major terrorism attack like 9/11 to Islamist I mean... yes. Because it clearly is associated. — Czello ^(music) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is about your own misconceptions principally. See the articles on Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism. DeCausa (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Already replied it above Gsgdd (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

a Hindu committing a terrorist attack? You are going to bring in Hindu's . (Personal attack removed) When was the last time a Christian group attacked a county? Violently? I get handing out bibles can be seen as attack. Islam does not like respect other religions. There in lies the problem. 207.190.74.74 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

what about this

The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11, were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by extremist Islamist group al-Qaeda against the United States of America in 2001. Gsgdd (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that - although the target article's title ("Islamic terrorism") is somewhat dubious in my view. But "Islamist terrorist suicide attack" in this article works for me. 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - i dint realize we needed to discuss first before opening rfc. removed RFC for now Gsgdd (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This really should be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I did. Gsgdd reverted me, so let's do this.

This is a non-starter of a proposal, and Gsgdd is simply trying to right great wrongs, which is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt social change, and should not be. The arguments that RS are "wrong" and therefore should be ignored is not going to be of any use on Wikipedia.

Further, casually throwing around the term racism is a dangerous game, and one I believe will blow up in your face. Gsgdd, I strongly suggest you step back and reconsider your approach. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have already communicated, i removed the RFC tag shortly after posting it. It need not be closed per WP:RFCBRIEF. It no longer applies Gsgdd (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with the need for caution around these labels, specifically given the way they are misapplied, I think it is appropriate to describe AQ as Islamist. This doesn't change the fact there are peaceful Islamist movements, but your proposal is like saying we shouldn't call Hitler "right-wing" because there are plenty of non-fascist right-wingers. Yr Enw (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Words has many meaning. I think Islamist is the wrong word. We label al qaeda as jihadist terrorist group or something specific, rather than labeling 9/11 as a islamist attack. It just wrong. that's the truth i believe. Gsgdd (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Jihadist is a good alternative, but it doesn’t make Islamist wrong. I guess the best approach is always reflecting what sources use the most (preferably academic, bc journalistic sources can indeed be very irresponsible and sloppy in how they use these terms) Yr Enw (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

RS say it was, the US government says it was, so we say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The U.S. government refers to the attacks as ‘Islamist suicide terrorist attacks,’ so RS follows suit. However, my point is that the term Islamist is being used out of context and potentially violates WP:NPOV. It wasn’t Islamist that caused 9/11, but rather the extremist group al-Qaeda, which practices jihadist terrorism. Therefore, it would be clearer and more accurate to specify this in the lead, rather than using a term with multiple meanings Gsgdd (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No there is no misunderstanding, their goal was not "al-Qaeda" not their motivation or agenda, it was Islamist. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How the hell is it used out of context? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you use an AI to write this? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that you mention it ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SPEEDY close this discussion. This has been discussed before and I'm very suspicious that OP is a sock of Dalremnei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) given that they got blocked over the same debate (and potentially socked again in another discussion on the same topic). — Czello ^(music) 15:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE CHANGE and I agree with @Czello I believe this is a banned user using a sock puppet account to further push their agenda against using Islamist when referring to who carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks. I also want to point out that Islamist is the extremist view of Islam that's not followed by mainstream Muslims. There should be a clear indication of this on Wikipedia to silence this discussion once and for all. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That part is not true. Islamism is just an "ism" for political Islam, and you get non-militant, non-extremist Islamists. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Protection status

As we approach September and the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, I would like to begin the discussion of protecting this page through the month of September 2024. What I've noticed in recent weeks is a lot of edits that propagate conspiracy theories. Please discuss below this message. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't typically enact protection ahead of time. Some years barely anything happens, others we need protection. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen a small uptick, but nothing concerning, and we deal with it if we need to. The past few years haven't amounted to much. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hijackers vs terrorists

@epicgenius you reverted my edit which I made as per MOS:TERRORISM. The reason you cited for the revert is that “it is very well documented that al-Qaeda is a terrorist group”. I agree with that, however, according to the MOS even in cases where such a label is widely used by reliable sources it should be used with in-text attribution. aps (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede isn't the place for in-text attribution of that kind, where it would be awkward, wordy and unnecessarily hedged. The lede is a summary, and this isn't a remotely ambiguous event of the kind that the MoS contemplates. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

THis is an issue of a technical violation, but I am unsure its all that contentious. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that 9/11 (and many other events) was terrorism. And I doubt that anyone would in good faith argue that it wasn’t. However, we don’t use this metric to describe other events (see for example ) and using it here makes Wikipedia appear biased since, effectively, editors of individual pages determine what is and isn’t deserving of compliance with MOS:TERRORISM. aps (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to be a double standard here Omagh bombing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My edit changed the wording to avoid the awkwardness of in-text attribution.

Regarding the MoS, is there precedent that some events are considered not remotely ambiguous of the kind that the MoS contemplates and as such appropriate to be described with (relatively) loaded terms? aps (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, the attribution is in the article itself, see WP:LEDE. The only reason you sometimes see cites in the lede is because people were fighting over the wording constantly, so editors grudgingly included cites there just to make them stop it. The lede itself is supposed to just summarize the cited information contained in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

105.245.44.11 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

i will add more information

What information? Slatersteven (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This article propagates an official lie

At least 6 hijackers were alive afterward. The buildings collapsed due to explosives. Sorgfelt (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pre-Removal Discussion: Dancing Israelis

Hi, I am the one who added the paragraph on the "dancing Israelis." I think it is highly relevant and it is indeed a real incident. I also included the two publicly-available screenshots of the FBI report on their arrest:

FBI report of flight itinerary of arrested Israelis on 9/11 suspected of being Mosaad agents.

FBI report released via FOI request that the Israelis detained on Sept 11th, 2001 were operating a fake moving company and a hijacker was believed to have used their services.

If anybody disagrees with this paragraph I added or its images, I'd like to make this space available for you ahead of time to present your opinions for discussion as I predict disagreement on the topic. ABC News still has a few articles up on the topic, e.g. You can read the FBI report here: Thanks! DivineReality (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2024

i want to share about my dads view as he was in the towers when they hit Asdsadad (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

UNtill RS discus this we can't include it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:OR. As Slatersteven says, we cannot include this until you have reliable sources which document it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"Flew" vs "which crashed"

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.

---

@Беарофчечьня:, I have reverted your change. The version you are changing to makes the sentence more clumsy. It doesn't need to be called out as the first impact, because this is the first impact we're describing in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The article was good as it was with "The first impact was that of..." because it clarifies the first attack. Also, "flew" is mentioned just two sentences afterward at: "American Airlines Flight 77 flew towards". That is why something different should be written in the first attack and I prefer the former version. Беарофчечьня (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we don't need to clarify that it was the first attack. It's the first one we're describing, it's right there. Plus "The first impact was that of... is just clumsy English.

If you can convince a consensus of people here that specifying it was the first impact matters, I'd go with:

Ringleader Mohamed Atta flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 am, making it the first plane to impact a building. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems we won't reach an agreement here, and that's cool. I guess it's best to let others chime in. Беарофчечьня (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all

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 Wikipedia 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)

Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? Moxy🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.

The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.

I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 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. Moxy🍁 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. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Wikipedia 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 WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say we are not wp:censored just to appease some people's feelings. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

"2001 attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2001 attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"2001 terrorist attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2001 terrorist attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 terrorist attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

@FlightTime, the reason given for the addition of the {{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. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think otherwise, but whatever. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking for disaster

Bruh why would you remove the Extended protection for 9/11 any random bozo can just edit it for the lulz New antares (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It's been nearly three years since the extended confirmed protection was lowered to autoconfirmed protection, and extended confirmed protection was itself only in place for six months in 2021-2022. - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I've asked for extended protection a few times and it was dismissed. I want you to know that I am totally on board for an extended protection on the September 11th attacks page and any related pages; especially now with the situation going on here in America. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for us to make that decision. If you are serious about preserving the details, then I suggest creating a website or joining a Facebook group that commemorates September 11th appropriately. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC on lead collage of photos

I'd like to understand why we don't keep this photo collage much more representative than the image montage in the article at the moment. The main image I suggested is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. Chronus (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – Anne drew 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds "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. Chronus (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. Chronus (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 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. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? Chronus (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Do you have any alternative suggestions? Chronus (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.Moxy🍁 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. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch5 And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the exact moment the plane crashed into the WTC? Chronus (talk) 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 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. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment The version Chronus supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like Butterscotch5 and Cena332 have been making a sincere effort to discuss this before making the change. 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. Ender and Peter 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. Kerdooskistalk 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. Unidentifiability (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. The proposed collage is more representative of the attacks, and gets across the main sequence of events much better and more concisely. Kzm193 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Bizarre Misquote in the "Planning" Section

This part of the "Planning" section is based on a misquote of the original source and should be removed from the article.

"However, Lawrence Wright wrote that the hijackers chose the date when John III Sobieski, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, began the battle that turned back the Ottoman Empire's Muslim armies that were attempting to capture Vienna in 1683. Vienna was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg monarchy, both major powers in Europe at the time. For Osama bin Laden, this was a date when the West gained some dominance over Islam, and by attacking on this date, he hoped to make a step in Islam "winning" the war for worldwide power and influence."

This explanation seemed so bizarre and out-of-place for me, I felt the need to check the original source. In his book "The Looming Tower" Wright states.

"Viewed through the eyes of men who were spiritually anchored in the seventh century, Christianity was not just a rival, it was the archenemy. To them, the Crusades were a continual historical process that would never be resolved until the final victory of Islam. They bitterly perceived the contradiction embodied by Islam’s long, steady retreat from the gates of Vienna, where on September 11—that now resonant date—in 1683, the king of Poland began the battle that turned back the farthest advance of Muslim armies. For the next three hundred years, Islam would be overshadowed by the growth of Western Christian societies. Yet bin Laden and his Arab Afghans believed that, in Afghanistan, they had turned the tide and that Islam was again on the march."

There is nothing here to suggest that Bin Laden chose this date specifically to avenge a historical Muslim defeat. Wright states that Islam's so-called "decline" against the Christianity fueled the Jihadist anger towards the West, but nowhere in the book he makes a claim that the date of Second Siege of Vienna was chosen for the 9/11 attack.

There are other issues with this dubious claim. Why would a Jihadist who had a Salafist approach to life even celebrate the Ottoman Empire which was seen as a corrupt and irreligious polity? (especially considering how Wahhabists declared a Jihad against the Ottomans in the 19th century). Secondly, the Ottomans used the Islamic Calendar, so for Muslims, the final battle of the Siege of Vienna happened on the 3rd of Ramadan, 1094 AH, and not on 9/11. Thirdly, the theory of perceiving the Siege as a pivotal date leading to the decline of the Muslims has been long refuted in the academic circles. Lastly, this battle and its effects do not have any special place in the Muslim mindset. It is surely important in the nation-building myths of Central and Eastern Europe, and for the far-right Christian nationalists but the Islamist mindset is mostly shaped by the wars led by the Prophet, the Muslim expansion during the first four caliphs and the Arab-led Umayyad and Abbasi Caliphates.

In summary, Wright does not claim a connection between 9/11, and the Second Siege of Vienna. There are no references to this date in Bin Laden's writings and speeches. This section is a total fabrication which clashes with the source mentioned in the article and the historical facts.

This section should be removed from the article completely. 85.104.173.70 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I looked into it, and our cite is to this article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/03/how-jihadists-schedule-terrorist-attacks/

That article does cite Wright's book, but it sounds like they completely misconstrued him based on what you've quoted here. It looks like Foreign Policy just quoted him out of context to support their assertion. As such, I've removed that section from our article. Good catch! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Mossad's list of 19 agents

Basically every 9/11 Wikipedia page (except this one!) features a claim that Mossad turned over a list of 19 names to the CIA a few weeks before 9/11 and at least a few of the 9/11 terrorists were on that list. The sourcing for this is wild: I see one edit done way back in 2006! to the page for Nawaf al-Hazmi. They all seem to share the same source, either to this BBC article that mentions an Israeli report but doesn't mention any shared names, or a link to the third-party Cooperative Research website which is really just aggregating links to a few stories. The ultimate source of the claim seems to be newspaper Die Zeit but I can't find that article. Several Wiki articles also claim that these names were passed through to the FBI who put them onto some watchlists but did not thoroughly search for them.

Anyway, I am bringing this up because that whole chain of citations is a bit stinky. Nobody's got an actual source saying Mossad turned over four hijacker names. It neatly lines up with some anti-Israel conspiracy theories. But, if it is true, it firmly puts the blame for not catching 9/11 squarely in the FBI's lap, so that would mean we need to cut out some of this "the CIA and FBI weren't working together" commentary.

My comments here are meant to reach out to the 9/11-obsessed editors of Wikipedia and maybe start an RFC. Are there better sources for this claim? If so, let's put them in. But if not, it's time to do a pass over Wikipedia and delete this claim because I am seeing it on a lot of pages. Lordgilman (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Name

Since everyone calls it 9/11, why don't we call it that or "9/11 attacks" 107.201.182.97 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Because in some places that could be read as 9th of November. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Outside the US, 9/11 would be read as November 9th. Most news sources also refer to the event using "September 11th" and very rarely 9/11. It makes complete sense the Wikipedia article would, therefore, read "September 11". Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2025 (2)

CheeseGuy223 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I need to fix something there was something incorrect.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2025

2601:602:D285:9540:54CA:77F1:A142:A8F4 (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I want to add something that was incorrect.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Help me

I taught I can add a new thing to Wikipedia but it’s wrong place oh what the hell Adf636 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2025

Remove the word "Islamist" from the opening paragraph. Thank you in advance. 92.40.195.21 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Remsense ‥ 论 22:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Add additional newfound information.

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.

---

New information suggests Israel was behind the attacks. This is NOT a conspiracy theory. This is facts. A video explains it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aic8E6Oypuk CentralWikiCommander (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Youtube is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Youtube is a reliable source. The streaming platform doesn't matter when seeing if it's a reliable source or not, it's the video. The video I linked is a journalist covering injustices in the Muslim world for more then 10+ years. Watch the video first, then reply back with your concerns. CentralWikiCommander (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

NO it's not here. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

??? CentralWikiCommander (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a RS here on Wikipedia for this claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

YouTube is not a Reliable Source Destinyokhiria (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Who said YouTube is not a reliable source? Why does the type of streaming platform matter, its the video that matters. CentralWikiCommander (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Scroll to the bottom of this Page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Destinyokhiria (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The channel is a verifiable source, according to the page you linked me too. therefore, the video should be put for review if it can be used as evidence to add on to this page. CentralWikiCommander (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source! Plus, it makes no damn sense either. Why the hell would Israel want to attack us? They're our ally, and their issue is with Palestine, not the greater Arab world. If they've wanted to do so according to your logic, don't you think they would've done it since October 7 of 2023? Enough of these conspiracy theory nonsense, especially concerning Israel. Butterscotch5 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, Youtube is not a verifiable source, but your talking in a pro-Israel way. You are supposed to remain un-biased.. The channel I linked is a VERIFIED channel, a journalist with a huge reputation for stating only facts. And last I checked, it is allowed to link these channels for review. I can also tell you why Israel wanted to attack us, but that would take too long, Just search up "The 5 dancing Israelies". It'll explain everything. CentralWikiCommander (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. — Czello ^(music) 15:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It was, In fact, a conspiracy theory, however the video a linked, from a VERIFIED channel, a journalist, explains very clearly with Israel and ties to the 9/11 attacks. CentralWikiCommander (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think, after the video I sent, clearly explains how Israel has ties to 9/11, should be official, and added into the Wiki page on 9/11 CentralWikiCommander (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on a YouTube video put out by a person whose channel description says A news media channel devoted to exposing and countering injustices in the Muslim world? Hard pass. This will not be added and I'm closing this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Osama Bin Laden killing footage

Soon, the footage of Osama Bin Laden killing should be uploaded on Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, I already have it, it leaked somewhere. 192.64.87.130 (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You are not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the best way to explain 9/11?

I thought that 9/11 was a inside job, but i was lied to, so i must be careful about editing and/or changing about the following article. Sawbrimedline (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We all must be careful editing the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Its called wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You've added this photo to the infobox. It's a photo you uploaded. In the file history you've said "Originally found from a Los Angeles Times news article". In the copyright section you claim to have uploaded it as copyright holder. I've reverted your edit on the basis of WP:COPYVIO. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sptember 11 attacks : Important For the World (Change)!

• What I think should be changed: "were four coordinated Islamist terrorist suicide attacks by al-Qaeda against the United States in 2001." to "were four coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by al-Qaeda, a group falsely invoking religion, against the United States in 2001."
• Why it should be changed: The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are often misused to wrongly link Islam—a peaceful, pro-humanity religion like Christianity and Judaism—with violence.Jihad is 0% Anti-humanity; it means striving for good, justice, and positive change—something Americans do every day by volunteering, helping neighbors, and standing up for justice. Adding the "ist" fuels misunderstanding and unfair stereotypes; As It leads to Humans thinking a specific religion (Islam); also has an aspect of being "anti-humanity" or "A Fake fundamentalist" When It does 0%; It Has like Every Religion no Place for "Fake Fundamentalism which = anti-humanity" and is only about being a "True fundamentalist = Pro Humanity".Reliable sources show extremists falsely invoke religion but do not represent mainstream Islam. Using clearer language promotes accuracy, neutrality, and respect @WikiPedia.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Was it false< looks like OR to me. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done. There is no consensus for this change. The words "Islamist terrorist" have a specific meaning that is accurate in this case, and the phrase is linked so that readers can learn more about that meaning. The lead sentence of that article, which is sourced, is Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism, radical Islamic terrorism, or jihadist terrorism) refers to terrorist acts carried out by fundamentalist militant Islamists and Islamic extremists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2025

Resolved

Fix broken subtitling on the first primary image of the Towers. Experienced on mobile; unsure if this occurs on other mediums. 2601:2C6:8501:D910:3070:EE65:2E82:4F12 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by broken subtitling. Are you talking about the caption of the infobox photo? Please be more specific about the issue you're experiencing. Day Creature (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Was able to replicate by rotating my phone horizontally, the caption overlaps with the image. I'll see if I can attach a screenshot. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 04:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/t7QaPSh there we go, not sure if there's anything that can be done though. May require the review of someone more familiar with templates and the technical aspects of Wikipedia — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 04:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

OP here, Volatile seems to have figured it out. The captions overlap fully with the first shown image of the Towers on some aspect rations. I don’t know how finicky an issue this but it’s definitely a glaring problem. 2601:2C6:8501:D910:9D3A:D899:7D59:C7AD (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest asking for help at the teahouse or help desk, to see if anyone there has an idea about how the issue could be resolved. Day Creature (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Captioning_issue meamemg (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

asked at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Captioning_issue per suggestion. meamemg (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a problem with either {{infobox}} or {{multiple image}}. See this test case for a simplified version. The caption is rendered on top of the images in mobile, as in the screen shot. If I expand the rendered code and add a {{clear}} between the div block for the images and the div block for the caption, it solves the problem. See this version of my sandbox in mobile. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So it sounds like this needs to be an edit to the {{multiple image}} template? That's certainly above me comfort level so I'll leave fixing to you or others. meamemg (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I have moved a condensed version of this thread to Template talk:Multiple image. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the caption to work around this issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please only use {{edit semi-protected}} when you know exactly what needs to be changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WTC 2 plane crash (Myers clip6).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2025

the date said it was 23 years ago it was 24 years ago Bails2015 (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It will be in a month. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama was responsible for sending the troops which ultimately lead to the capture/death of terrorist Osama Bin Laden. President Obama earned that credit and should've been mentioned. 2600:1700:67C0:C400:ED95:5652:C802:6FDC (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Why, as this occurred well before that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

George W. Bush gets the credit because the war started during the Bush administration. It was his goal to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, but this wasn't accomplished until the Obama administration. That's not too difficult a concept to grasp. Butterscotch5 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2025

Change

The estimated 800 people[162] who survived the impact were trapped and died in the fires or from smoke inhalation; fell or jumped from the tower to escape the smoke and flames; or were killed in the building's collapse.

to

The estimated 800 people[162] who survived the impact were trapped and died in the fires or from smoke inhalation, fell or jumped from the tower to escape the smoke and flames, or were killed in the building's collapse. 108.203.147.125 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

"Air traffic control during the September 11 attacks"?

Should an article on ATC and NORAD operations and communications during that day have its own article? The sources on the topic are pretty extensive and ATC played a huge role in how that day went down, especially when the nationwide grounding order went out. ^EF⁵ 03:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This should definitely have an article. I would even make it with you, if you're willing to. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WONDER-R1-E008 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• End Of Serenity.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The North Tower burning on September 11, 2001.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on Target of Flight 93

I was just wondering if we have a solid consensus on whether the intended target of Flight 93 was the US Capitol building, as a new editor is very insistent on claiming such? Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone wrote it was the US Capitol on 26 September. But I just now reverted it. I think strong consensus will needa form to determine it. However, on my part, I don't think we'll ever know its intended target until the al-Qaeda or the US Government confirms it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

---

September 11 attacks → 9/11 attacks9/11 attacks – According to WP:COMMONNAME it should be moved to 9/11 attacks as It's the most known popular term worldwide here is ngram. A$ianeditorz (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Although 9/11 is more common in colloquial use, both are common names for the attacks, and I see no reason to favor one over the other. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, MOS:SLASH.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. A page move may cause more problems than it solves. Both terms seem to be common names, but in addition to MOS:SLASH issues, there would be the technical restrictions per WP:NC-SLASH, and how it would effect all the existing numerous associated archived talk pages here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. To not potentially confuse international readers, September 11 is more clear as opposed to 9/11 (which uses the American notation). Additionally, "9/11" when searched redirects to this page, and it mentions in the first line that it can also be referred to as 9/11; there is simply no need to change the name of the page. Mew2TCG (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - for starters, the article has over 16,000 incoming links by my count, so I'm not even sure it's technically possible to move it. If it is possible, doing so which put immense load on the servers. So simply from that perspective I'd oppose it. Then add the MOS:SLASH and WP:NC-SLASH issues mentioned, and the fact that 9/11 is a bit too colloquial. Guettarda (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Moving pages shouldn't put immense load on the servers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Pppery - I don't know if it still does, but it certainly used to be a thing. And I'm pretty sure mediawiki has never been rebuilt from the ground up. Guettarda (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  If page moves don't put immense load on servers, do they affect them in any way at all? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Britannica though I agree that the proposed title is common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not much to add really, it's not even the only 9/11. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose : Not everyone knows 9/11 is September 11. In many country 9 is date and 11 is month. So just keep it as is Cinaroot (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Zzyzx11. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

~2025-39287-57 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC) it was not sure to be islamic terrorists. so to avoid offending people who may or may not have done something i would reccomend to change it to terrorist attacks

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"A second plane hit the second tower" should be a redirect to this page

A notable phrase associated with the event ~2025-37349-71 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Unsure this is a widely used or notable phrase, rather than just a description that will not feature as a search. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

A crude joke/meme perpetuated by those who weren't even born on September 11th 2001 (ie, Generation Z and Gen Alpha) has absolutely no place on this page as a redirect. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Collage repetition

I don't think the collage should have these exacted images in the collage. I believe the collage should be reverted to the original, or at least propose a modified on, because some of the images are exactly the same as the collage on Casualties of September 11 attacks. The collage should be a bit more unique on this page. Also, there is no mention of Sdkb having permission to revise this collage in this talk page. BretHarteChitown (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia administration might see something I don't have access to; but from what I can tell, this user has not made any edits in the past six months that involves the September 11th talk page — either the current page or archived pages. I'm also not sure what you are trying to say, is there an issue with the collage? Are you referring to the supposed changes the tagged user made, again not sure when this was because I'm not seeing any edits in the past six months. I see some edits to this page made by you in the past few days, and I can't keep track of what you've added or deleted. Butterscotch5 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't added or deleted anything outside of this topic of the talk page, to make to some corrections and add some evidence. You also don't need to "keep track" of what I added or deleted on this page, because I have created this account in October 2025. It isn't very relevant ethier. As for the collage, I don't think anything is technically wrong with it. Just that it seems to be a slight replica of the collage on Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and the creator of the collage seemed to add it himself even though he hasn't talked about adding this collage since 2021. So I suppose that there should be a discussion about this, just to be fair. BretHarteChitown (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@BretHarteChitown I've reverted it. He added his own footnote in there too and removed this <--Do NOT change a photo without discussion first on the talk page.--> Cena332 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay @Cena332, thank you for responding back. BretHarteChitown (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Died a bunch of people like that’s very sad and peoples like parents like just like sad like super sad ~2025-42034-59 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for opening this discussion, @BretHarteChitown. (I was not notified of it until the revert, because when you edited your comment to mention me, there was no new timestamp so it didn't generate a ping.)

I made that collage back in 2021, and it was present in this article for several years. At some point during that timespan, I'm guessing it was copied to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, so that's why it's also present there. But because that article is a subtopic of this one with far fewer views, this should have first dibs (for lack of a better term) on images to use for the collage; if differentiation is needed, it's on that article to do it.

I checked in on this article recently and saw that the collage had been adjusted in ways that I think make it worse (this is unfortunately quite common with collages), so I attempted to restore my version.

Here are the two versions for easy comparison (present is on the left, mine on the right):

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; a firefighter requesting
  assistance at the World Trade Center site
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

• From top, left to right: The Twin Towers burning
• Rescue workers at Ground Zero
• Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Fragment of the Flight 93 fuselage
• 9/11 Memorial reflecting pool and One World Trade Center

I think the current version has two main issues. First, it's not balanced between the different parts of the attack. It has two images for the Trade Centers, either two or four for the Pentagon (depending on how you want to count), and none for Flight 93. More prominence to the Twin Towers makes sense given that they're where the vast majority of casualties were, but the Pentagon is given too much and there should be something for Flight 93.

Second, some of the images are low-quality. In particular, the CCTV frames at the bottom are so low-quality it's hard to even tell it's the Pentagon without either clicking on them or having some contextual knowledge. The first two are also basically the same. (Less severely, the firefighter image is also fairly dark, something that I think my replacement option fixes.)

I think my collage is balanced much better. The top image remains the same, as the sight of the towers burning is the most iconic image of the attacks. The middle left photo represents the rescue efforts and first responders. (It is placed on the left, where it works better, as the flag forms a natural border.) The middle right image also remains the same, and represents the Pentagon attack. The bottom left photo represents Flight 93 and the aviation aspect of the attacks. Lastly, the bottom right photo represents the memorialization efforts in the aftermath of the attack and provides a note of closure.

What do other folks think — do you agree that the collage on the right is better? Sdkb ^talk 19:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If it was your collage that was copied, why don't we discuss this collage in a different section of the talk page. Not only it's different from the collage on the Casualties of the September 11 attacks, it also displays the crash of Flight 77, debris from Flight 77, and two of the memorials for the 9/11 attacks for closure. I don't agree that the CCTV images on the Flight 77 crash is low-quality. Even if so, there is already a video of the crash in the "Crash" section. Also, whether you think your collage is better or not. It doesn't mean you can just add a proposed collage that hasn't been spoken of since 2021. If you believe the collage should images of the rescue efforts of 9/11, there are images that show that here, which you can add to.

Here's the current collage and the collage I created:

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; a firefighter requesting
  assistance at the World Trade Center site
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames
• 3rd row: Fuselage debris of Flight 93
• Bottom row: The Pentagon Memorial and the
  South Pool of the National 9/11 Memorial

BretHarteChitown (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Or this one, that includes the collapsed portion of the Pentagon.

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames
• 3rd row: Fuselage debris of Flight 93;
  Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Bottom row: The Pentagon Memorial and the
  South Pool of the National 9/11 Memorial

BretHarteChitown (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

(Please use {{clear}} or collapsed content to make this thread navigable.) I don't think those proposals are better options for the same balancing aspects/image quality reasons. Your first proposal is also far too long, given the space constraints we have for this infobox. I am interested to hear what others think. Sdkb ^talk 05:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe the memorial photo should be in the Photo collage, rather the Rebuilding and memorials section of the article is more appropriate. You don't regularly see a memorial photo in the infobox, rather the actual events. A Wikipedia article is not to meant to 'provide 'closure', it's meant to tell you what happened. Cena332 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The article is supposed to cover the attacks in the broadest way, which includes their impact/legacy. That's why we cover memorials in the article, and also mention them in the lead. So why not reflect them in the collage as well? In addition, they're visually compelling (memorials are designed to look beautiful) and they add some variety to the infobox so that it's not 100% photos of destruction. Sdkb ^talk 18:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It is uncommon to encounter a memorial photo within an infobox, with actual events being the usual content instead. The purpose of a Wikipedia article isn't closure, but to create a comprehensive, neutrally-written encyclopedia of knowledge. Cena332 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

What I meant by "closure" was less "it makes everyone feel alright again" and more "it wraps up the collage by having the final stage of the event (its aftermath/memorialization) as the final picture". Sdkb ^talk 19:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A memorial photograph can be found at the conclusion of the article. It is intended that the infobox display the actual occurrences, rather than commemorations. Cena332 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2026

Information regarding Donald Trump’s involvement with the Saudi Arabian government and Osama bin Laden, in preparation of the attack as well as housing of the terrorists at Trump Tower is missing. As a key component of this September 11 attack, Donald Trump should be recognized. ~2026-13284-0 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You will need very good sources for this claim, so far you have produced not even one very bad one. So not going to be done. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as [the 1993 World Trade Center bomber] Ramzi [Yousef] yourself and others did.

+

The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as [the 1993 World Trade Center bomber] [[Ramzi Yousef|Ramzi Yousef]] and others did.

• Why it should be changed:

The quote has a typo: it says “yourself,” but the interview transcript reads “Yousef.” This fixes the quote to match the source. I believe "Yousef" got mistyped to "yourself" and appended to the quote

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Iso9er (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Iso9er (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Iso9er (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 07:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• UA175 Explosion Todd Rengel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs and many of the listed "Motives"
• The Background section relies too much on block quotes instead of summary style.
• The article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG, at over 13,000 words. Some information should be spun out or summarised more effectively.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JohnsonKV DSC 0043.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JohnsonKV DSC 0106.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you add protetcion cuz us dont want wandalism

{{Edit fully-protected}} ~2026-11794-12 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected. It doesn't need full protection. — Czello ^(music) 09:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2026

Grammar in the 3rd line. ~2026-12314-91 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: What is the ungrammatical text, and what should it be changed to? LizardJr8 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: @~2026-12314-91: Tell me if you think it looks better. Toast1454_TC 18:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The change shouldn't've been executed. The Temporary Account needs to give more details on what they're trying to change and what not. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

September 11 attacks

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been chipping away at it and got rid of the various citation needed templates, but would like advice on what else to adjust. It's an extensive article, and takes multiple sets of eyes to find any issues. Much love, rock on, thank you for your time!

Thanks, ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@ArkadenBoden: I can see a few page needed template. I think starting there would be advisable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Borsoka

This is an important and high-interest topic, attracting nearly 14,000 views per day, and I believe it has the potential to be developed into an FA. My first concern is the article's length. At over 13,000 words, it exceeds the size generally expected for a Wikipedia article. In my view, the topic could be summarised much more concisely, likely in fewer than 9,000 words, and a substantial trimming would almost certainly improve the article's overall quality. My second concern relates to sourcing. Given the sensitivity and prominence of the subject, the article should rely primarily on the highest-quality scholarly sources. At present, several references appear to come from publishers that do not operate a formal peer-review process. In addition, drawing more extensively on specialised peer-reviewed studies on 9/11 itself, rather than on more general works on terrorism or on Osama bin Laden, would strengthen the article considerably and ensure that the topic reflects the academic literature. Borsoka (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox collage discussion

In favor of replacing the current collage with something more descriptive, but with now memorials in it, I decided to create my own collage proposal. Initially, I thought that have an memorial image wouldn't be a problem, even suggesting to add an image of the Pentagon memorial that was already in the article. Though as @Slatersteven pointed out, the article isn't about the memorials or aftermath of 9/11. At least not enough to add as a lead image.

So, I deleted the memorial images and choose to use images solely depicting the attacks. I also kept the original footer design and some image, but I removed the left to right extensions. The footer already descriptive enough, so it wouldn't need to let the reader know the image location from left to right. I changed the word World Trade Center site to "Ground Zero" for a shorter, more common name. I removed the three CCTV images of the UA77 crash into the Pentagon because it was low quality and a video of the crash is already in the article.

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2rd row: Flight 93 crater; fuselage
  debris of Flight 93
• Bottom row: A fireman requesting
  assistance at "Ground Zero";
  collapsed section of
  the Pentagon

What do you think? Should this be the new collage or should we kept the current one instead? Vote Oppose if the collage should stay the same or Support if this should be the new collage. BretHarteChitown (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Well I opt for, why do we need to change it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the collage could be more descriptive, aligned in the proper order (as in the order of events of 9/11), and remove the three CCTV images because they're just not needed. BretHarteChitown (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The RfC is above. Please do not open a separate thread on the same topic per WP:TALKCENT. Sdkb ^talk 00:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

^{I originally made this comment alongside hatting this thread, but BretHarteChitown removed it without explanation and did so again after Moxy reverted them. I'm restoring it here and caution BretHarteChitown to abide by the talk page guideline — when removing a hat, you should cite guidance justifying your edit, and you should at minimum move the hatting comment to the discussion. Sdkb talk 07:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)}

I Support this, as the CCTV images aren't really needed for the collage. Cena332 (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Website in infobox

Do editors feel it is appropriate to have the link to https://www.911memorial.org/ in the |website= parameter of the infobox? Per Template:Infobox civilian attack, that field is for the Official websites (e.g. inquests/ inquiries) only. The current link there is to the website of an organization, which controls the land where one part of the attacks happened, but I'm not sure we can really say that it's the "official" website of the attacks as a whole, or even the American perspective of the attacks as a whole, moreso than e.g. https://www.9-11commission.gov or other links in the external links section. As a museum, it has an agenda (selling tickets, starting at $24), which raises neutrality concerns.

The infobox as a whole is very long, so removing the official website line and reserving the museum link for the external links section would be one way to shorten it. Thoughts? Sdkb ^talk 00:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This entity already has its own article anyway: National September 11 Memorial & Museum. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like we're on the same page. Done. Sdkb ^talk 07:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox collage

Which collage should be used in the infobox for this article? Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Option A

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; a firefighter requesting
  assistance at the World Trade Center site
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

Option B

• From top, left to right: The Twin Towers burning
• Rescue workers at Ground Zero
• Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Fragment of the Flight 93 fuselage
• 9/11 Memorial reflecting pool and One World Trade Center

Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Background

Prior to 2021, File:September 11 Photo Montage.jpg was used as the collage in this article. In 2021, I proposed it be redesigned, which was adopted via silent consensus and was used in the article for several years. It was copied over to Casualties of the September 11 attacks at some point (that article now uses {{September 11 attacks}} for the lead visual instead), and in November 2023 the top image was changed to one that's now a redlink. In March 2024 the entire collage was changed without edit summary or discussion. It became very unstable after that, with numerous swaps, a talk page discussion, a change back to the pre-2021 version for a while, and other modifications that I won't bother to trace the history of, ultimately arriving at Option A (which shares elements with the pre-2021 collage).

I recently checked in and noticed these changes. I attempted to restore Option B but was reverted, leading to the discussion above, where two editors proposed various options. Each received no support from other editors, so this RfC compares the status quo (Option A) against the longstanding version from 2021-2024 (Option B). Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Option B. September 11 was a multi-pronged attack, so a collage is useful for representing its different facets. I put considerable effort into the 2021 redesign, surveying the available images on Commons, composing them, and documenting my process (which I later generalized into the essay Wikipedia:Collage tips). Collages are notoriously unstable, though, and the present version does not display that same level of consideration.

Mostly copying my comment from above: Option A has two main issues. First, it's not balanced between the different parts of the attack. It has two images for the Trade Centers, either two or four for the Pentagon (depending on how you want to count), and none for Flight 93. More prominence to the Twin Towers makes sense given that they're where the vast majority of casualties were, but the Pentagon is given too much and there should be something for Flight 93.

Second, some of the images are low-quality. In particular, the CCTV frames at the bottom are so low-quality it's hard to even tell it's the Pentagon without either clicking on them or having some contextual knowledge. The first two are also basically the same. (Less severely, the firefighter image is also fairly dark, something that I think my replacement option fixes.)

I think Option B is balanced much better. The top image remains the same, as the sight of the towers burning is the most iconic image of the attacks. The middle left photo represents the rescue efforts and first responders. (It is placed on the left, where it works better, as the flag forms a natural border.) The middle right image also remains the same, and represents the Pentagon attack. The bottom left photo represents Flight 93 and the aviation aspect of the attacks. Lastly, the bottom right photo wraps it up by representing the memorialization efforts in the aftermath of the attack. Overall, each of the elements is recognizable (even at small scale) and both visually and topically distinct from the others, and the collage is short enough to keep the infobox from overflowing the lead section. Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B The 3 images depicting the planes impact in option A don't add much and the memorial in B is significant. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option B (mostly). Remove the broken plane fuselage/windows picture and the Ground Zero as it looks today picture, insert the fireman picture. The fireman picture should be included because it adds a "human touch" and reminds readers of the sacrifice made by thousands of rescue workers. It's quite a striking photo and very inspiring, a testament to the human spirit. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A, as this is really about the attack, and not memorials. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A, would have to agree with Slatersteven. A collage for this page article should really be about the attacks, not memorials. BretHarteChitown (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A, I agree with Slatersteven and BretHarteChitown, and as I have previously stated, It is uncommon to encounter a memorial photo within a infobox, with actual events being the usual content instead. The purpose of a Wikipedia article isn't closure, but to create a comprehensive, neutrally-written encyclopedia of knowledge. Cena332 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  My response. Sdkb ^talk 03:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B, but I would replace the 9-11 Memorial South Pool photo with the fireman photo instead. Some1 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Copying my reply in the thread above for ease of reference: The article is supposed to cover the attacks in the broadest way, which includes their impact/legacy. That's why we cover memorials in the article, and also mention them in the lead. So why not reflect them in the collage as well? In addition, they're visually compelling (memorials are designed to look beautiful) and they add some variety to the infobox so that it's not 100% photos of destruction.

  If people are open to having a memorial photo but just don't like that one, one of Tribute in Light might be a good option.

  One other thing to note: The fireman photo is landscape, compared to the current square orientation of the memorial pool photo, so if we swapped them we'd presumably want to crop it to maintain the vertical alignment/avoid making the Flight 93 image too small. Sdkb ^talk 18:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B, per User:Some1 (Summoned by bot). There's room for the memorial image later in the article, and there is nothing wrong with having multiple ground zero images. I'd hate to lose that impactful firefighter photo. TheSavageNorwegian 19:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option B. Without prior reading of any of the arguments of the other participants here for option A or B, and being no ‘expert’ at all concerning this Wikipedia page, (but having intensely witnessed the 11 Sept 2001 event and its effects in the world,) I will vote for option B. For the wider world (excluding the ‘9/11-Wikipedia-experts’ who probably mostly are US citizens what I’m not), ‘nine eleven’ is about aeroplanes crashing into the twin towers, deeply insulting the United States of America; and hardly about the Pentagon being also hit by a plane (flight 77) or a hijacked flight 93 crashing in Penn. (which indeed have also happened but are not perceived as ‘essential’).
  Going from that (subjective) starting-point, I notice that collage A includes two of such ‘top relevant’ pictures (nrs. 1 and 3 of the WTC), collage B then has (in that personal view, assessment of mine) three top-relevant pictures: photos 1 and 2 of the WTC and photo 5 showing the September 11 Memorial which expresses the ‘coming-to-terms’ of the U.S. nation with the 9/11 event. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  (After having read the pleas of TurboSuper, Some1 and SavageNrw for replacing the memorial photo with the fireman, I politely disagree with them. The fire fighter is for me ‘too well-known’ and not very specific for 9/11/2001; however, until today I had NEVER, anywhere, seen a picture of that 11 Sept Memorial (even though I’m a conscientious newspaper addict), and I think that whole memorial is very impressive and ‘telling’. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC))

  It's funny 'cause I've never seen that firefighter photo until this RfC. I agree with TurboSuperA+ above that the firefighter image adds a nice "human touch" to the collage, which collage B in its current form lacks. The 9-11 Memorial South Pool could be placed in the #Rebuilding_and_memorials section of the article. Some1 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B, but I agree with User:Some1 above, to replace the Memorial South Pool photo with the fireman. It's very much a symbol of the event to see a fireman in a photo. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 19:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A - Images should focus purely on the attacks themselves (which is what the article is about), not the "legacy" of such. We already have an apropriate section for such "memorial" images. I also personally find the replacement of the firefighter with the American flag to be tacky. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 05:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option B, but replace American flag rubble with firefighter rubble from option A. Per sdkb it would be a geometric problem to replace the reflecting pool with firefighter; however, I disagree with sdkb that the firefighter is too dark. Rather, it is high-contrast which makes it easier to understand at the small display size of an infobox. The firefighter is more clearly a destroyed building whereas the flag could be confused with a scrap metal heap due to the presence of the buckets in the foreground.

The Pentagon CCTV frames are illegible, as others have said, and thus don't merit inclusion.

Per infobox purpose the "purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." Given that the lede concludes with discussion of the memorial it is appropriate to have an image of a memorial at the bottom of the infobox. Uhoj (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

For editors who prefer to keep the firefighter photo, I think this is a much better swap, since it replaces one image of Ground Zero rescuers with another. Sdkb ^talk 00:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option B - This is a difficult choice but as a Wikipedia reader I think option B is what I would expect to see in this article. My main problem with option A is the three images from the Pentagon camera footage. This is not commonly associated with it and are confusing for most readers. Option B presents this more clearly. My only concern with B is the image of the Flight 93 fuselage fragment since it is not immediately obvious what it shows but overall B is the better option. Ismeiri (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
• A but ditch the tiny Pentagon pics, overall the images seem better quality and most suitable for the lead. In B the one with the US flag isn't necessary and seems off (nationalistic?), and memorial pics can be featured elsewhere in the body Kowal2701 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oprion B, as I find it has the most descriptive images in terms of illustrating the events to the readers. Although I do like the firefighter image in A. Swee☩ Amber|Bbyshrkbss2 14:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option B with fireman image from A, as others have discussed. I don't particularly mind which image gets replaced, but the fireman image is very iconic. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 20:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• From top, left to right: The Twin Towers burning
• A rescue worker at Ground Zero
• Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Fragment of the Flight 93 fuselage
• 9/11 Memorial reflecting pool and One World Trade Center

RfC close/implementation: OK, so following up, this RfC hasn't gotten a formal close, but looking at the !votes, there are 10 editors who support some variant of Option B and 5 who support Option A, with the former group providing more explanation/rationale, so I think it's clear the consensus is for B. Many of the Option B !voters, however, expressed a preference for keeping the fireman photo, so that should be retained. No one rebutted the argument Uhoj/I made that the rubble-and-flag photo makes the most sense to swap out because it's another photo of Ground Zero with similar dimensions, so I will proceed with that in the implementation. I will also move it to the right of the Pentagon photo so that the fireman forms a natural frame and update the caption, alt text, and hidden comment. That leaves us with the result at right.

I would appreciate it if closer watchers of this article could keep an eye on the collage going forward. Collages have a really bad tendency to be tampered with in a way that degrades them over time. However, per WP:CONLEVEL, an RfC result should not be overturned without another discussion at the same level, so if anyone ignores the warning and tries to do so, they should be reverted. If there is a future RfC about the collage, please ping me/the other editors who participated in this one. Sdkb ^talk 00:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support the Option C collage that @Sdkb proposed as a combination of what others had said about the two initial collages. I think the Flight 93 fuselage image more broadly represents the attacks than the 3 still-frames of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, since there is another image from the Pentagon attack.

I don't really have an opinion either way on the memorial image. Seeing as the article does deal with the aftermath of the attack, I think its inclusion could be reasonable.

I think the image of the firefighter better represents the human element of the attacks than the image of the flag, as the rescue workers in the background of the flag image just blend into the rubble when the image is viewed at this size. It would be lacking for the infobox collage to just have pictures of buildings, plane parts and inanimate objects, and no good image of the humans involved; the main deal about these attacks is that they killed a lot of humans. Mhazandaren (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The memorial image has not reached a consensus to be included in the Infobox, please reach a consensus first, as 8 editors have objected to it @Slatersteven @BretHarteChitown @Some1 @Thesavagenorwegian @Guacpocalypse @GhostOfDanGurney @Uhoj @Kowal2701. You haven't had any WP:DISCUSSION with them about it. Cena332 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cena332, you attempted twice to remove my comment above. Others have reverted you, but I will reiterate the warning Moxy left on your talk page: This is a clear-cut violation of the WP:TPO guideline, and if you persist you will be blocked. You have also just pinged only the editors who agree with you (mostly — Uhoj in their !vote supported the memorial photo), which goes against the canvassing guideline.

Setting that aside, there was clearly some disagreement above about the memorial photo, as there was with several other photos in the collage. (It's not clear from the !votes alone how many objected to having a memorial photo vs. primarily just wanted to keep the fireman photo.) But the editors supporting it cited a guideline in support of their argument (MOS:IBP, which establishes that infoboxes should reflect all facets of a topic) whereas those opposing it mainly used JDLI reasoning. No one objected after Uhoj suggested and I concurred that it was better to swap out the other Ground Zero rubble photo so that we didn't have two photos of the same scene. And there was clear consensus against Option A, so after the discussion went dormant for more than a month it was time to implement the prevailing consensus to restore Option B, even if it involved an element of a bartender's close. Sdkb ^talk 06:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

In you're edit you had place this part Warning 🚨: This collage was agreed upon to and you also put a comment which me or BretHarteChitown hadn't noticed because we were simply removing the false Rfc statement you added, but BretHarteChitown later corrected the mistake, because you typically don't put that above a comment, when the collage hasn't been agreed upon. You also placed {abot} under BretHarteChitown's photo collage. You don't get to decide to close the conversation, and close other people's collages without engaging in a consensus, about the lead problem people are facing with your collage. Cena332 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Can we have a formal close, by an uninvolved editor? Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Cena332, I find it a little hard to parse what you're saying, but if it helps clarify, the hidden comment was a copy of the hidden comment to be used in the article to help keep the collage stable, not a comment on talk page behavior.

Slatesteven, uninvolved closes are always optimal when we can get them. On purely the Option A vs. some variant of Option B question, the consensus seems quite clear (10 editors to 5), so I stand by the view that we should have implemented the prevailing consensus (and per the RfC rules a formal close is not required to do so). The main point of contention seems to be whether to swap out the other Ground Zero photo or the memorial photo. Because that was not the primary question in the previous RfC, it seems we should have a follow-up one to gain clarity on that point. I'll start that below. Sdkb ^talk 19:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2026

Change "including U.S. support of: Israel" to "including U.S. support of Israel" (remove unnecessary colon) Gfabulous14 (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This represents the start of a list separated by semicolons, and it makes sense in context to have a colon there. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Notable deaths

Cattenion, you should self-revert. Changes that have been challenged cannot be restored without affirmative consensus, as per arbitration remedy here. I think it is undue to include a cherrypicked list of notable deaths. We already have separate articles for that purpose, which also contain lists of notable people. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes I didn't see that indication but someone has now reverted. Cattenion (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Although you state "also contain lists of notable people" I don't see the proof that such a reality is true in either: Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks or Casualties of the September 11 attacks#Fatalities - perhaps you'd like to review your opinion and provide an indicate of exactly where such information exists. Cattenion (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

So the names you added here are not listed on those pages? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

My intention is: i.e. has a wikipedia article (or is an associated family member of article) - as I showed in the sentence "interest"; A. of your Q.: are listed but amongst every other death - so navigation via my chosen heading is time use efficient because: the maxim: "time is money" (time has a value which is indcated by the numerical reality of money), death is forecoming for all readers (because mortality is inevitable) - having a spcific exact indication provides immediate and satisfactory gratification of the need for relief of frustration=ignorance=insufficient information because of time pressure inherent in human existence. Cattenion (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are their deaths more notable than any of the others? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks is an index article. There are sub-articles with lists of alphabetical order. If they are not already in those lists, then you can include them in those lists. The problem with that is that if we were to add notable deaths here, then we would have to include them all, which is redundant and unnecessary when there are already separate articles for that purpose. I also have a personal problem with the content because it implies that the lives of those people had more value than other victims. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

As least one of whom is only notable because he is someones brother. So wp:undue and wp:or may come into this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"it implies" with regards to dignity - it is my expection that anyone/someone would be interested (as a subject of reading & study) in individuals who in their own lives provide unusual or extrordinary information on subjects - have done something significant in the world, in academia / any company or the public doamin (such as television or film etc): this is the reason=cause articles in wikipedia were made on those people. The consequence of such articles isn't that appeals should be made for the sake of all the other humans - I didn't suggest "lives have a value" implying a (numerical) value of human life such as "a slaves value" or "wage, pay" for anyone. It is only: those people are more interesting which is provable as they have articles made about them. Cattenion (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Philosophical arguments have no bearing on content here. We follow policies and guidelines. Sub-articles exist for a reason on Wikipedia. The main article is already large enough, so to make it accessible for readers, we split content into separate articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Linking

@Acroterion: While the edit summary may not have been ideal, I agree that this edit should be reverted - it introduces multiple seas of blue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

OK by me. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2026

CHANGE

[deleted copy-paste]

 Not done. Simply specify the changes you want. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)