Template:Pbneutral

Template:September 11 arbcom

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: September 11 / History B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Terrorism B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia: Northern Virginia B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. New York City B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skyscrapers B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Template:WP1.0 Template:Wikipedia CD selection

September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 19, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed July 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed August 30, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 25, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I propose the first two sentences of the section should be replaced with this:

The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and culture. Its impact on culture extended to most aspects of life.

No objections were raised in the prior discussion to having that wording in the section, though one editor has since objected to the first sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to change it? You don't give any reasons why. I think the current wording is better. For example, in the first sentence, you've changed an action verb ('extends') to a non-action verb ('have') which makes the wording seem boring to be honest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have only mentioned the first sentence. Do you have any objections about my proposed changes to the second sentence? The wording of the second sentence currently is rather odd and confusing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same basic objection. WP:FACR says that pose is supposed to be engaging, even brilliant. But you still haven't provided a rationale for why you want to make these changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how your basic objection would apply to the proposed second sentence. The current wording of that second sentence does not engage me and I do not find it to be brilliantly written. Do you mind explaining why the current wording of the second sentence is so much better than my proposed change?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current second sentence is also hard to source: who says that the cultural impact is revealing with regard to the influence on "ordinary people"? Geometry guy 21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be polite, but your wording is boring. You dropped "wide-range" and replaced 'reveal' with 'extends'. To my ears, your proposal makes the text sound dry and boring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This would need a copyedit at the very least: "Its" does not match "attacks", and "extended" is the wrong tense for an ongoing influence.

For comparison: current text is:

The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people.

In both cases, there are phrases requiring sources ("significant effect", "wide range", "most aspects"). I also think it might be possible to copyedit these sentences down to just one, as they involve some repetition of ideas. Geometry guy 21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "extended" to "extends" is fine. Perhaps we should keep the current first sentence and add in my proposed second sentence with the small change of replacing "impact" in the first sentence with "effect" so we don't re-use the same word. My proposal with the second sentence, I think, provides a more natural segue into the next sentence. Plus, so long as we have sources for the following sentence we wouldn't need to source my proposed second sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@GeometryGuy: Why are you saying that the second sentence is hard to source? Tom's proposal was based - in part - on one of my previous proposals from months ago and I based my version entirely on that popular culture guide book. We can double check to make sure no one inadvertently added something new, but everything in the entire section except the last sentence can be sourced to that book. That's why I placed the cite after the fifth sentence. It's the source for the previous 5 sentences. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with sourcing except for maybe the last sentence.

@Everyone: I'm having internet connnection issues at home. This might be the last post I make for a few days. I can follow the discussions on my phone and iPad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Let me attempt a synthesis.

The 9/11 attacks have influenced society significantly and their impact has extended beyond geopolitics into wide-ranging cultural effects.

This combines the two sentences, uses active verbs, consistent tense, and many of the nouns in both versions. Geometry guy 21:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "wide-ranging cultural effects" wording just doesn't work for me in either version. It does not seem encyclopedic to me at all.

The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and their impact on culture extends to most aspects of life.

How about that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the source AQFK cites above. If we use this, the first sentence or two should be based on the intro to the book. Here are a few quotes that might help.

1. September 11, 2011, changed the landscape of American culture
2. Other shifts in American life since 9/11 have been powerful and long-lasting
3. Virtually all areas of popular culture... were deeply affected by the 9/11 attacks
4. A close examination of the relationship between September 11 and popular culture can reveal much about how the attacks were processed by ordinary people

The second sentence is evidently influenced by Quote 4, but I am not convinced it is encyclopedic to make a similar statement in the editorial voice: the revealing nature of the relationship is the opinion of the source, which requires in-text attribution.

The book discusses the wide range of emotional responses to 9/11, but I did not find reference to "wide-ranging" effects, even though these are evident. Hence I don't see a reason to keep that term, and we may be able to do better using the source material. Geometry guy 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think quotes 2 and 3 are largely consistent with my proposed wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to the insinuation that 9/11 had more than a generally transient alteration to the cultural landscape, thats just the premise for some storylines so some authors have something to write about...now more than 10 years later, the only readily observable changes are if one must board an aircraft...exactly where are we going with this anyway?--MONGO 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no intent to go anywhere with it other than where I have said. My thought is that the current writing is sub-par and unencyclopedic. I want to go to a situation where we have better writing in this article. Do you think the current wording in the paragraph is of high quality?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is lousy wording...but I haven't seen anything any better...we're trying to (I think) overreach a bit...the impacts on a long term basis to the average American, minimal...I'm thinking about how we can use the section to better qualify what have been the real impacts...this will take some time to formulate. I don't think many people have much thought about the issue...surely those who lost loved ones have a different relationship to others who were only impacted by what they saw on the tele or when they have to board an airplane and even that hasn't changed too significantly.--MONGO 05:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not guess - lets get refs. The long term impact is huge and is why we have stupid conspiracies.Moxy (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil liberties in the USA were somewhat revoked and have yet to be fully restored.Robert Greene (3 September 2010). The 33 Strategies Of War. Profile. p. 446.

The deaths and POW concerns because of the war that was caused because of 911 did impact society as a whole despite the Americans efforts as suppressing video and pictures.Raphael Israeli (2004). The Iraq war: hidden agendas and Babylonian intrigue : the regional impact on Shi'ites, Kurds, Sunnis and Arabs. Sussex Academic Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-903900-89-5.

Been to an airport lately?Bartholomew Elias (21 September 2009). Airport and aviation security: U.S. policy and strategy in the age of global terrorism. CRC Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-4200-7029-3.

Tried to cross the a land border lately?Judith Warner (20 July 2010). U.S. Border Security: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-59884-407-8.

Have you seen the money spent on security and military that could have gone to health care or old age pensions over the years?Ross J. Anderson (5 November 2010). Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems. John Wiley and Sons. p. 546. ISBN 978-1-118-00836-2.

Do we not all think the view towards Muslims in-general has changes?Jocelyne Cesari (2010). Muslims in the West after 9/11: religion, politics, and law. Taylor & Francis. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-415-77654-7.

Also there has been a huge change in the American military culture resulting in its influence on society Benjamin Buley (2008). The new American way of war: military culture and the political utility of force. Routledge. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-415-42995-5. .

Meh...nonsense...I live in the U.S. and I say that the cultural impact here is now just history. People simply don't think about 9/11 much these days...I can't see why we need to create a drama that doesn't even exist.--MONGO 07:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great rebuttal to the referenced material. Got a ref that says people dont think about 911 much anymore?. Also would like to point out the American deficit crisis is also very closely linked to 911 because of the wars... we will be paying for it by way of taxs for a generation or 2.The reference for my statement. Moxy (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hum, the wars are one thing and all that is fine in a daughter article...but this is all tangential to what this article is supposed to be focused on...we're talking about one small section here and we need to maintain focus and scope. If you can rephrase the section and follow MOS in doing so, then have at it.--MONGO 07:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also live in the U.S. and can say pretty strongly that it still leaves a big footprint on our culture. Fear of terrorism, for instance, is still a heavy driver in society.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think government uses this fear to substainate spending that is neither well planned or executed and may not do anything more than provide a cover for the inevitable...they can say, well, we "tried"...which is better than answering for why nothing was done at all...otherwise, its a huge industry and money pit and that is perpetuated by fear mongering. Risk is always with us and some forms of terrorism or at the very least, violently anarachist activity has been ongoing throughout human history...the only difference now is the ability of a few to do so much damage to so many and that is what sparks the fear.--MONGO 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your right I guess the rest of us can moved forward then on the one sentence - as refs opposing your position of 911 no longer being culturally relevant have been provided. So as per "Geometry guy" request above ... requiring sources ("significant effect", "wide range", "most aspects"). Not the exact wording but close...Moxy (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger Chapman (2010). Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices. M.E. Sharpe. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-7656-1761-3. The War on Terror opened significant new fronts in the culture wars
• Nan D. Hunter (20 July 2009). The Law of Emergencies: Public Health and Disaster Management. Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-85617-547-0. Since September 11 and the anthrax attacks that quickly followed, the lens of emergency has had a major impact on our culture and law

We shouldn't be obsessed with backing up the exact wording so long as the words we use are a fair and accurate representation of what is said in the source. The concern here is that the current wording reads poorly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, and if exact wording is used, it has to be a quote anyway...reasonable deductions can be inferred from various writings but the emphasis for this article should be to make sure we maintain focus and scope...the focus for this article should always have followed the 5 W's...what, when, who, where, and why....after effects, periperhal and incidental issues either don't belong here or need to be mentioned only in passing.--MONGO 19:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the efforts being made here to find sources. However, it seems to me that they are not quite addressing the same issue as the first two sentences of this section. Sources should support the subject matter in the article, and then that material should be worded to reflect the sources supporting it. That isn't circular: we have a pretty good idea here what subject matter we are talking about, and one source for it, but we either need better wording or more sources, probably both. Geometry guy 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I think the wording I proposed and tried to insert into the article effectively accommodates your concerns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that: the goal, however, is consensus wording, not "Geometry guy approves" wording :) Geometry guy 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus through discussion naturally cannot emerge unless we see what changes people approve, your approval would be one step towards consensus and thus you know, you should like, say if you approve or not. ;)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Geometry guy: I know that you don't like "reveal" in the second sentence. I honestly don't understand your concern. If you can point me to the appropriate policy/guideline/essay and I'll try to understand what you're saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV. My concern is that we are repeating the viewpoint of the source in the neutral editorial voice. Geometry guy 00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in order to prove that, you need to provide other reliable sources that don't agree with this assessment. This means either a) a source which directly disputes this ("The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks do not reveal how they influenced ordinary people") or b) a source which makes a different claim ("The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal [something different]). But rather than ask you to provide such sources, can you suggest an alternate wording of the second sentence that addresses your concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that WP:V does not circumvent WP:NPOV? Whether a source uses the word or not does not factor into whether we just throw it in there in the editorial voice as Geo said. Using "reveal" here is just puffery and nothing more. I see no reason for you to insist on such wording. Maybe you could provide an alternative wording for the sentence to try and satisfy the concerns of other editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 attacks have significantly influenced society and this cultural impact extends to many aspects of life.

How about that as a proposed wording?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response: arguments over a couple of straightforward sentences are symptomatic of an atmosphere that this talk page needs to outgrow. No blame game: blame it 100% on me if need be. I don't want to have to "prove" anything about the current wording, nor do I want to take sides in a dispute. What I want is to find a consensus wording for the beginning of this section, wording that everyone finds acceptable because it is good wording. I proposed a rewording myself above, and The Devil's Advocate has provided a few alternatives. I prefer these wordings to the current one to the extent that they say less.

So far there seems to be only one relevant source on the table. I am willing for the article to say more, as it does now, based on that source, but in that case, I would favor in-text attribution: "As Quay and Damico note,..." or something like that. However, I would still prefer, if possible, not to rely so much a single source in this way, which can be done by saying less, or by integrating material from other sources. Geometry guy 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit it already. Its a relatively inconsequential section anyway...MONGO 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@GeometryGuy: What if we replaced "reveal" with "demontrate" or "show"? Would that help at all? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would prefer "show" to "reveal". I still prefer some of the shorter rewordings, but I'm all in favor of compromises. Geometry guy 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be better, though any synonym for "reveal" is problematic, but the wording in general needs work. Particularly the wording "wide range of cultural effects of the attacks" is sloppy. I also dislike the mention of "geopolitics" in the first sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I have been editing it to insert such changes. AQFK has been reverting, hence the discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got an idea for a substantial rewrite that integrates a lot of the current and suggested wording.

In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the cultural impact of the attacks demonstrates how they affected society in general.

How about that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, perhaps with a (matching) change of number, and a copyedit (with options): "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, cultural impacts of the attacks demonstrate their broad/general/widespread/wide-ranging effect on society." I would also suggest "illustrate" or "highlight" as alternative verbs to "demonstrate". I tend to prefer the perfect tense ("have demonstrated") but the present tense (as in "are an ongoing demonstration of") is okay here, and may be better. Geometry guy 00:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the present wording sounds more interesting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the latter comment I agree: per WP:CYCLE and WP:CONSENSUS, minor changes like these should ideally take place through progressive edits to the article, with constructive and informative edit summaries. However, I think past conflict regarding this article has resulted in a loss of trust, with a lingering wariness, as well as some ongoing disagreements in related articles. Rebuilding trust is not easy and requires time and effort from everyone, but patience and mutual respect bring great rewards: good faith no longer becomes an hesitant assumption, but a welcome vehicle for article improvement. As with my previous meta-comment, there is no blame implied here, only a sincere wish to look forward to making this article something Wikipedia as a whole can be proud of. Geometry guy 01:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)) Bracketing reply to removed comment, but I still hope my meta-comment is helpfully positive. Geometry guy 01:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm lost. Maybe I'm not as sharp as I used to be, but would it be possible to get a current list of proposals in a more organized manner? I would love to submit my opinion but I don't know what's new and what's outdated. --Tarage (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent suggestion is a few paragraphs up. Geo made a proposal in the top half of the section towards the middle.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a summary of some of the ideas. Feel free to add further suggestions to the list, even if they are just tweaks. Maybe we can reach consensus this way? Geometry guy 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. (Current text) "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks show how they influenced ordinary people."
2. (G'guy 1st attempt) "The 9/11 attacks have influenced society significantly and their impact has extended beyond geopolitics into wide-ranging cultural effects."
3. (TDA latest) "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the cultural impact of the attacks demonstrates how they affected society in general."
4. (G'guy variant) "In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, cultural impacts of the attacks demonstrate their widespread effect on society"

Why not just have a see also link to List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks at the top of the section and leave it out of the first sentence altogether?--MONGO 03:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the benefit of that idea: it would provide an editorially neutral link, and free up the wording enough to make it easier to write a single introductory sentence, rather than two. Geometry guy 22:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw "see also" I thought he meant at the bottom of the page, but putting it right below the section header would definitely be a nice change. I have been troubled by the fact that the article being linked to was more specifically about art, film, and music as opposed to the broader social implications the paragraph is about. Also, now that I think about it, adding "broader" in the suggested wordings above would seem to be a nice substitute for the "wide-ranging" wording in the current version. On another point, I don't really like making "impact" plural. That strikes me as odd.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that would make it easier to write about the cultural impacts...the List doesn't have to be incorporated into the body of the section and we don't have to WP:PIPE the link to make it fit, which MOS suggests we shouldn't...here.--MONGO 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with that perhaps wording like this would be preferable:

"In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the attacks have had a broad impact on society and culture in general."

What do you think?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed it as an edit. I hope we have built enough trust on minor issues such as this to use the normal editing process for minor improvements and consensus building. To succeed in this, please remember that WP:BRD does not mean "be as bold as possible", nor does it mean "revert first, ask questions later". Aim instead to make only incremental changes, and, in response, prefer compromise edits or fixes to changes, rather than reverts (WP:CYCLE is an alternative acronym that refers to this). Usual disclaimers: no criticism of any editor or action is implied by these comments, but rather an optimistic look forward. Indeed, this discussion has demonstrated that all contributing editors have much to offer in terms of improving this article. And there is work for us to do :) Geometry guy 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else is said, I oppose "impacted" in this context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree with that: "impacted" is awkward. I hope we can find wording that everyone can live with: it is down to just one sentence now, and not a particularly contentious one. Geometry guy 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was trying something a little different. Saying "have had a significant impact" is a sufficient substitute for "significantly impacted" in the section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, here's the discussion. As of this writing, a degrading and defamatory image of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in use in this article. This individual has never been convicted of involvement the 9/11 matter; and as such, presumption of innocence stands. Use of such an adversely biased image should be regarded as a gross violation of the requirements of WP:BLP; and is also not in keeping with the principle of Neutral Point Of View. The image has been commonly used in the pop culture media. If certain media outlets want to wallow in the journalistic gutter, it's their privilege to do so. That doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia to do the same. If an image must be used, one of the available neutral images should be selected. Wildbear (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care if he is convicted or not. Either way he should be treated like any other living person. We have a free image that does not make him look like he just got arrested for child pornography and so we should go with that one. The image from his capture has relevance in the article on him when mentioning his capture, but including it here does not serve much of a purpose. In fact, the image I attempted to replace it with has more relevance as it is from 2001 and was included on the FBI's wanted posters.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I do a Google image search,[2] it's by far the most popular image of him, and therefore the one most likely to be recognized by our readers. We write for them, after all. It's used by many, many reliable sources, even BBC News.[3] Please keep in mind that WP:NPOV refers to editorial neutrality. IOW, we don't get to override sources based on our own personal opinions and biases. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AQFK. This request is pointless. Simply because you don't like what reliable sources say and show does not mean you can overwrite them. And, once again, Wikipedia is NOT a court of law, so we can say whatever we want to say about a person. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because it's not like there's some sort of policy that says the exact opposite. The real issue here is that a lot of people like the image that makes KSM look like a dirty hobo and despise any attempt to have something that looks more respectable. My feeling is that it makes the article look more like a joke than a serious attempt at making an encyclopedic work. We really don't even need to have an image of KSM in this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because a picture of him taken at his capture, which is not only relevant to this article but the attacks themselves, is obviously wrong. We should clearly have a picture of him at his favorite bar knocking back a brewski with his bros. That would be far more appropriate and relevant... --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of him from an FBI wanted poster the year of 9-11 is clearly relevant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg is entirely appropriate and adds to the article. The third paragraph is about his arrest, transportation to Gitmo, waterboarding, and confession - events directly relevent to his treatment and condition. The picture gives the reader a better understanding of, and context for, those events. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we had pictures of Osama's corpse you would probably be insisting on putting those in wouldn't you?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI wasn't going to have THAT image of him on a Most Wanted poster since he was no longer wanted.--MONGO 03:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SEEALSO:

I've removed one link that was already present in the article text and several that are extremely unlikely will ever be integrated into the article text. That leaves us with two links:

• Families of September 11
• Legal issues related to the September 11 attacks

I haven't looked yet, but if anyone can spot a place where these two links can be integrated, please do so. If they're not going to be integrated into the article, they should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, please, AQFK. "See also" sections are not deprecated, and can be useful to readers. Writing a comprehensive article which needs no "See also" is extremely difficult. Here we surely need to make improvements one step at a time. Geometry guy 00:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's a link that I was too hasty with, please restore it or post it here for discussion. As for the remaining two links, that's why I kept them and opended a discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you doing that. I would caution, however, against putting the cart before the horse: the ultimate content of the article will determine the need for a See also section, not vice versa. Geometry guy 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "geo" from "geopolitics" in the cultural impact section. The issue is that "geopolitics" is too narrow a term for the political issues that are included in the article. Also, the preceding subsection is about "government policies toward terrorism" and has nothing to do with geopolitics from what I can tell. All we have are mentions of domestic political issues. The aftermath section had a bit more about geopolitics, but it is no longer in that section. Given that the impact was in the broader scope of politics we should not say "geopolitics" in that sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment here, and do so reluctantly, as I am fed up with arguments over individual choices of words, and with editors insisting that each word in the article (or even this paragraph) is protected from change by consensus. It is an attitude that prevents normal editing and encourages a battleground mentality. I agreed upon the inclusion of this paragraph, not the choice of every word in it.

In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, the word "geopolitics" is appealing here for two reasons: first, it is a catchy word, and second, there is an overlap between politics and culture. The sources do not use the term, so unless we find one which does use it (in this context), the first reason should be dismissed: good encyclopedic writing is not about using unattributed unsourced eyecatching words; there are plenty of other ways to make an article interesting. The best case for "geopolitics" here is that it contrasts cultural impact with an aspect of politics which has a relatively small intersection with everyday society and culture.

However, that is also a weak point: the whole point of the first sentence is to make an interesting and relevant contrast in order to introduce the rest of the paragraph. We don't want to write, for example, "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond architecture and structural engineering into society and culture in general."

I think we are trying to say that the impact of 9/11 on society is not purely political, and then give more cultural and sociological examples. For instance, conspiracy theories, which prompted this whole debate in the first place, evidently do have both political elements and even geopolitical elements. What we've agreed, however, is that they are most notable from a cultural and sociological viewpoint, as with the other examples discussed in this section. That's the consensus we are building on, not the choice of every word.

So I prefer "politics" here to "geopolitics", but am open to any rewording of the first sentence that is based upon an agreed goal and the reliably sourced material we present. Geometry guy 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a previous suggestion about the term "political arena" and I think that would be sufficiently catchy and still be broader than the current term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: in praise of my own suggestion :) the term "political arena" makes a contrast between the formal, partisan, governmental and institutional (including international) aspect of politics, versus the more cultural and sociological aspects of politics which are implicit here. It would be nice to have a source that makes the contrast in a similar way, but I believe this is the contrast we are seeking to make in our presentation/organization of source material in this section. Geometry guy 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Politics? I'm not a stickler for wording on something like this. --Tarage (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that many of the political effects were domestic and others international. Not adding some sort of narrow prefix to politics is the most accurate way of wording it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geo's suggestion is fine. As I said, I'm not enough of a stickler to be bothered by this change. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been asked to comment, so I'll write some of my thoughts here. I agree that the term geopolitics is technically more narrow than the breadth of the topic might warrant. It reads well in the sentence, since 9/11 might be thought of as largely a geopolitical event. But 9/11 undeniably had considerable political repercussions as well. I'd be concerned that if the term "politics" were used alone, the reader might perceive that as being somewhat provincial, just as "geopolitics" might seem to be too confined to an international view. I don't have a good suggestion at this time, since I feel that adding too much qualification to the term would just slow down the flow in the paragraph, with little beneficial gain. I'm okay with either "geopolitics" or "politics" - I have no preference for either. If anyone comes up with a better idea, I'll be ready to put my support behind it. Wildbear (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about "political arena" as suggested by Geoguy?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it acceptable, and perhaps an improvement. I looked through a thesaurus for similar words, and "arena" seems to convey the intent about as well as anything; in that it implies a virtual space, rather than a real geography. Wildbear (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Warnings Before the Attack", Condolezza Rice is listed as the Secretary of Defense. At the time of the attack, Condolezza Rice was the Secretary of State and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. It is not clear who actually received the information mentioned in the article. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake...at the time of the attacks, Condolezza Rice was the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State. She did not become the Secretary of State until GWB's second term in office. My apology for the error. JCF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote attributed to Sec. Rice isn't in the source cited; since it's contentious and likely to be challenged I've removed it[4] per WP:BLP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--MONGO 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge appeared to have removed mention of the August memo and replaced it with duplicate material about the July meeting mistakenly. The statement that material was not supported by the source is not accurate. If it is a reference to the "several officials warned or were warned" statement that is a typical WP:SUMMARY of the section's content. Should it be about the "contentious" wording that is supported by the Blanton source. Everything is thus supported by reliable sources and some material was mistakenly removed. As to there not being discussion, that is not a legitimate basis for reverting changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we have made the most progress on this article when we discussed edits on talk before making them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur...MONGO 14:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that discussion be had before a change is made. Edits are the preferred method of getting consensus. In this case the change is uncontroversial, just some retooling of the paragraphs and a few sourced additions. Should AQFK have an objection to part of the material on the basis of it not being directly sourced that can be easily remedied by finding another source and adding it to the material. That is no basis for a wholesale revert. Your response was actually appropriate and constructive as concerns were addressed through editing rather than reverts. Discussion should ideally only be a resort when there is a contentious dispute that cannot be remedied through normal editing. Forcing a discussion on every little change only obstructs the improvement of articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's Bold - Revert - Discuss. Your bold change has been reverted, and AQFK has expressed concerns that it may not accurately reflect the sources. The next step is discussion until we reach consensus. It's pointless for you to unilaterally declare your change uncontroversial. Manifestly it is controversial, or it wouldn't have been reverted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are actually removing information about the August briefing. Also, removing the entirety of the material doesn't help BRD because it doesn't tell anyone what is being disputed. If it is only part of the material being disputed then there is no basis for reverting all the changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These precipitate and unilateral changes are disruptive, and are coming close to screwing up the article. You need to stop this at once, stop reverting, and propose and get consensus for your changes. It may be necessary to take the page back to NuclearWarfare's version of 13 March 2012 just to untangle what you've done; I'll wait for others to look it all over. I was a fool to try and accomodate your rewrite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting all the improvements I made to that section would be overstepping. If you have any specific objections to the changes I made then raise them here and let us discuss them. Discussion is quite impossible if no one is going to say what problem they have with a change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What improvements? Looks like some conspiracy theory POV pushing to me...how about you take a break and I'll look over your "improvements" this evening and if they don't look like what they do in my latest cursury glance, then maybe we can add some of it...MONGO 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]