Template:Vital article

Template:Pbneutral

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 May 24, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

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 Top‑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. Top This article has been rated as Top-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

Template:September 11 arbcom

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 was just wondering why Pearl Harbor wasn't added in terms of perspective because it was the most foreign destruction act on American soil right next to 9/11.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that draw a comparison? TFD (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are plenty of sources that can draw a comparison. Both acts were carried out by foreigners, both acts were carried out by planes, both acts were surprise attacks, and both acts killed more than 2,000 American citizens within a span of a few hours. See this link here, another one here, and this one here. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is clearly an opinion column, per the heading (and URL); the second borders on commentary, but appears to be essentially a dual interview; and the third is essentially an interview, usable only for Dreifort's opinion. I'm not sure they are usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wichita interview draws some interesting parallels and differences. I notice also that there is no mention of the Oklahoma bombing, until then the biggest terrorist attack in the U.S. or the Kennedy assassination, which until then was the main event that most people remembered what they were doing when they heard about (just as Pearl Harbor had been). It might warrant mention in the article, but I do not think it should be in the lead. And you need better sources. TFD (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking about foreign acts of destruction on American soil, not domestic ones as JFK assassination and Oklahoma City bombing were carried out by U.S. citizens. And for these links, how do you know that the articles doesn't warrant the use of putting these kind of information in the article? You can't assert these articles as opinions and since people based on the similarities and comparisons on facts and not opinions. There are more links to come by as well. [2], [3], and [[4]. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three articles, the first was published as an opinion column, and the other two seem only to assert that the interviewees see the connection, not the reporter. With respect toWP:RS, that's an opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we have seen plenty of comparative analogies between the two events and least this editor isn't asking us to chitty chat about how the mean nasty neocons or the Jews "did it"...and that's refreshing at least.--MONGO 15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, now are you saying my three new links are just opinions and not based on facts? I can't believe that you come to this conclusion. Are analogies now are just opinions and not based on facts? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to look at the new links when I wrote that. The first two look reasonable, although phrasing of the first suggests it may be a "column" rather than an "article", and hence only useful for the opinion of the author. The third is clearly a "column". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed the addition...seems excessive to me and has no place in the article introduction anyway.--MONGO 05:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "just opinions and not based on facts", they are opinions based on facts. So the relevant policy is weight - are these opinions so significant they should be included. Different opinions could be based on the same facts. There is a difference btw between a military attack by a world power during a world war designed to destroy US power in the Pacific and an attack by a small group of terrorists. If you had secondary sources, they would explain this and then we could determine what weight to provide different views. TFD (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should not be included - as others have stated they should not be in the introduction and they are "opinion". David J Johnson (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

So are you saying that the fact 2,403 killed at Pearl Harbor and 2,777 killed during the 9/11 attacks are just opinions? These numbers are widely similar. Can you name me any other foreign attack that caused thousands of deaths on American soil within one hit? I would love to hear it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah do you understand the concept of synthesis? You should look up what it means and why we don't approve of it. --Tarage (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: [5] "Asahi Shimbun and The New York Times: Framing Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks", comparisons on treatment of the two events do appear to be more than simple opinion as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a sentence in the article body is fine, but WEIGHT is important.--MONGO 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." this statement is so subjective wikipedia just got knocked off its pedestal in my paradigm. Now wikipedia is just another information source you have to be critique of... Thx, for all the good years wiki:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.109.126 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think 9/11 conspiracy theories are plausible, we don't want to be on your pedestal. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the second paragraph of the "Memorials" section contains a sentence which reads "...Plans for a museum on the site have been put on hold..." Is this not incorrect, since a museum now exists there? 67.247.63.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed; thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Type: - Islamic Terrorism

                      Jihadism
                      Sunni Muslim extremism

Dsarkosky (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons

   Boeing 767-200's
   Boeing 757-200's
   Pocket knifes
   Utility knifes

Don't you think it is ridiculous to call a boeing full of people a weapon? It has been used as a weapon but still Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 13:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the comment from Gob Lofa, whilst it is not informative, it needs to stay until a consensus is reached on whether the aircraft were used as "weapons" Neither editor has given informative reasons - one way or the other. Further discussions from other interested editors is required. I also need to think-over my own views. David J Johnson (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. Many things can be used as weapons, even if they aren't specifically designed for killing. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is quite ridiculous. Something more ridiculous, something less ridiculous won't make a difference. The article is garbage, a international joke. Dornicke (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that?--MONGO 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: WP:DNFTT. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gob Lofa: true. Can you explain why the list in the infobox is helpful to the reader, though? We already mention the aircraft central to the attack in the first paragraph of the lede, and the knives really need prose explanation in the article body (as is done) to be meaningful to a theoretical naive reader that knew nothing of the attacks. To me, this list is just taking up space without adding any value to the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have here an article about one of the most relevant events in contemporary history. A governmental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic.Dornicke (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you get your information, but the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source, if not the definitive source on the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source. LOL. See what I'm saying? Ridiculous. Editors of the English Wikipedia want to rewrite reality. Dornicke (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning.--Korruski^Talk 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9-11 Commission Funding Woes - Time Magazine Dornicke (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see when that article dates from, but it looks to be 2001-2002. Personally I don't really see the significance of it, but if you think that a fairly obscure funding disagreement in the early days of the commission report is notable then I am sure you can propose an addition to the article along those lines. Just be sure to avoid adding anything that can't be directly sourced to that article.--Korruski^Talk 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about your personal opinions of the significance of the sources, you can keep them to yourself. As for the sentence If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report.. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning - Stop right there. I'm not talking about "conspiracies", I'm talkikng about factual history reported in mainstream, relevant and reliable sources. The 9-11 Commission was HUGELY criticized for being underfunded, for conflict of interests, etc. This is on the major newspapers throughout the world. Don't try to play the "conspiracy theory card" to freeze this article in this version, which reads like a institutional pamphlet of the White House. There are and there were several criticism towards the 9-11 Commission. Not addressing this issue is FALSIFYING REALITY. Period. Dornicke (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, dig the sources out and start writing. If you stick to WP policies, you'll be fine. Good luck. --Korruski^Talk 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything to support the above claim? Something like the sentence of a tribunal based on factual evidence? 37.133.53.224 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the supplied sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's nothing to support those claims. The tapes are merely "attributed to Bin Laden", as several reliable sources have already stated, such as The Guardian ("A recorded message attributed to Bin Laden", "A voice attributed to Bin Laden" [6]), Al Jazeera ("major statements attributed to bin Laden since 2001" [7]), BBC ("Since the 11 September 2001 attacks, a number of video tapes, audio recordings, faxes and other statements have been attributed to Osama Bin Laden", "Audio message purported to be by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden [8] [9]), CNN ("new statement attributed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden" [10]), ABC ("threats attributed to Osama bin Laden" [11]), CBS ("recordings attributed to bin Laden" [12]), CBC ("audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden" [13]), etc. The article, in fact, should say the attacks are attributed to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, since there hasn't been any kind of factual evidence or tribunal sentence confirming that. Dornicke (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. "Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States." [14] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tribunal is not required to establish the connection: ample sources, including Bin Laden himself, have established the connection. This is no different from describing Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's assassin in the absence of a trial. Dornicke, stop tring to water down material to support conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know Dornicke really posted that, though? Maybe it's just someone with revdel access overwrote a real post by Dornicke. Attribution in the signature isn't enough proof that that post wasn't written by an admin trying to besmirch Dornicke's name! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden is said to have claimed responsability. Only.

The Guardian - Bin Laden voice on video, says TV channel: "A male voice - apparently that of Osama bin Laden - praised the hijackers as "great men [...]. There was nothing to indicate that the sound-only recording attributed to Bin Laden had been made since the war in Afghanistan. [...] The voice attributed to Bin Laden praised the participants individually by name". Dornicke (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That post is attributed to you only by the site. If you claim that is your post, it's still only attributed to you by the site. We don't know if you're really Dornicke. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]