Revision as of 20:39, 23 May 2023 editInomyabcs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers1,926 edits →Erasure of Jacobin Reporting: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:44, 23 May 2023 edit undoChances last a finite time (talk | contribs)234 edits →Erasure of Jacobin Reporting: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
::::That isn't what Jacobin says. This is a source on Misplaced Pages's list of approved sources that calls the report "A recently unearthed bombshell court filing". Even though the bombshell filing has been "studiously ignored by the media and political establishment" the reporter says that "The agency then worked in concert with the Bush administration to cover all this up, with each using the screwup to launch several foolish wars, funnel more power and resources to themselves, and go on a spree of ." It is important to tell readers that "instead of the Saudi government, it was the United States’ own intelligence agency that played the leading role in shielding the 9/11 hijackers from detection and unwittingly facilitating their crime, all because of the agency’s extreme secrecy, and because it was acting outside the bounds of the law — far from the first or such instance in the CIA’s history." when a source that ] "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" says so. ] (]) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | ::::That isn't what Jacobin says. This is a source on Misplaced Pages's list of approved sources that calls the report "A recently unearthed bombshell court filing". Even though the bombshell filing has been "studiously ignored by the media and political establishment" the reporter says that "The agency then worked in concert with the Bush administration to cover all this up, with each using the screwup to launch several foolish wars, funnel more power and resources to themselves, and go on a spree of ." It is important to tell readers that "instead of the Saudi government, it was the United States’ own intelligence agency that played the leading role in shielding the 9/11 hijackers from detection and unwittingly facilitating their crime, all because of the agency’s extreme secrecy, and because it was acting outside the bounds of the law — far from the first or such instance in the CIA’s history." when a source that ] "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" says so. ] (]) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::::The problem is that later in the article, the author states, "Though far from definitive, these allegations line up with theories about the lead-up to September 11 that have long floated around...". That statement still levies that Misplaced Pages should still refrain from giving undue weight to a theory that is far from proven. ] (]) 20:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | :::::The problem is that later in the article, the author states, "Though far from definitive, these allegations line up with theories about the lead-up to September 11 that have long floated around...". That statement still levies that Misplaced Pages should still refrain from giving undue weight to a theory that is far from proven. ] (]) 20:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::::👌 ] (]) 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I am not, see ] and ]. ] (]) 20:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | :::I am not, see ] and ]. ] (]) 20:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::You are not what? Not arguing that we should exclude coverage from this reliable source? ] (]) 20:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC) | ::::You are not what? Not arguing that we should exclude coverage from this reliable source? ] (]) 20:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:44, 23 May 2023
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Misplaced Pages:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Misplaced Pages. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Error: The code letter 9/11
for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||
|
|
Connection between 9/11 and war on terror
How do we define “part of” in the phrase “part of the War on Terror”? Is 9/11 considered to be part of the War on Terror? Someone edited saying that because 9/11 led to the war and caused the war, and didn’t happen as a wartime battle or attack, that it’s not part of the war. But I can also see it as being part of the war because it was the precipitating event. I can see it either way, I’m neutral about it. Just wanna throw this out there and see what we’ve got. Opinions? Thoughts? Perspectives? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mrbeastmodeallday: I would strongly regard 9/11 as not being a part of the War on Terror. The 9/11 attacks were the inciting event that provoked the War on Terror to begin as a response, and were therefore not a part of the War themselves, especially since there was no military conflict during the attacks, meaning they cannot be viewed as a "battle". The infobox used to not include the War on Terror until May 2021, when it was added with no explanation. I would strongly support removing this from the infobox. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The September 11 attacks were the seminal event that provoked the US into launching the War on Terror. I wouldn't classify it as part of the War on Terror however the actions taken by the US government following the attack such as the Afghan War, establishing the Department of Homeland Security, and the PATRIOT Act would absolutely constitute being part of the War on Terror. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would also say that 9/11 is definitely not to be regarded as part of the war, but the major (or at least a major-) cause. A supporting example to this is, that the Defenestration of Prague and the assasination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand are not generally seen as part of the Thirty Year's War or WWI, respectively. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of Fatalities related to the Attacks
Under the Section "Investigations>>FBI", the very last paragraph is a bit misleading when it cites source . The wikipedia article says "The FBI did not record the 2,977 deaths from the attacks in their annual violent crime index for 2001." The report *did* fully tally those deaths, but in separate tables from the rest of the data, in an entirely separate section of the report (section V, pages 301-307 of that section). This Misplaced Pages article correctly quoted the report when it said "the FBI stated that 'the number of deaths is so great that combining it with the traditional crime statistics will have an outlier effect that falsely skews all types of measurements in the program's analyses.' ", but they didn't just delete the data from the report, but rather quarantined it from the rest of the data so that it didn't unfairly skew the results. It should also be noted that the way the report bundled the causes of death together: the report classified *all* of the deaths related to the attacks (minus the 19 hijackers, of course) as murder, *including* those who died by jumping: "UCR Program has classified those deaths for the purpose of presenting these data as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" (page 303 of the report). I found the text for section 5 (pages 301-314) of the CIUS 2001 report--that wikipedia cited as --at the following URL: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec5.pdf Also, for reference, source as cited in this wikipedia article: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/toc01.pdfINSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, im seeing that that report tallied 3,047 total deaths, which is different, not sure why the discrepancy is there. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I became a confirmed wikipedia editor recently, I went ahead and edited this. INSANITYISAVIRTUE (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
WTC 21-632.TIFF wrongly labelled as Public Domain
This picture was seemingly taken by Lyle Owerko, but the picture itself is tagged as "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government]] supposedly by an employee of the NIST and "released" because of a FOIA (which has nothing to do with being public domain or not). Is there any evidence that the picture actually is in the Public Domain? Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I can't verify whether that image has been CC licensed by Lyle Owerko. I do know the NIST drop has a readme note saying that all of the images are copyrightable by the owner. In fact, a NIST report has copyright marks on the images used including Owerkos. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- There's actually loads of pictures by him on the commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Special:MediaSearch&search=%22Lyle+Owerko%22&type=image - This might be bigger than one photo. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- So, Lyle Owerko gave NIST permission to release his photo with the caveat that he still retains ownership of the copyright. Am I correct? Hmm1994 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- That would be my interpretation of the NIST license file that was with the report investigation. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- So, Lyle Owerko gave NIST permission to release his photo with the caveat that he still retains ownership of the copyright. Am I correct? Hmm1994 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Missing word: "Similar pre-impact evacuations were carried out by companies such as Fiduciary Trust" 149.86.189.14 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2023 (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:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Erasure of Jacobin Reporting
I added content from Jacobin https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1156612334. But the content has been erased. Jacobin is on the list of approved sources Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and I should be able to use it. Chances last a finite time (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- And the same argument applies here, as in every other place you have tried to use it for statements of fact, it is OK for attributed claims, not for statements of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- That is not what "generally reliable" means on the list of approved sources. It says that " The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." and "Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing".
- Why do you argue that we should exclude such a reliable source? I am unconvinced. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Chances last a finite time - Please read the FAQs at the top of this talk page. It states
"Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact."
DDMS123 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)- That isn't what Jacobin says. This is a source on Misplaced Pages's list of approved sources that calls the report "A recently unearthed bombshell court filing". Even though the bombshell filing has been "studiously ignored by the media and political establishment" the reporter says that "The agency then worked in concert with the Bush administration to cover all this up, with each using the screwup to launch several foolish wars, funnel more power and resources to themselves, and go on a spree of yet more lawbreaking." It is important to tell readers that "instead of the Saudi government, it was the United States’ own intelligence agency that played the leading role in shielding the 9/11 hijackers from detection and unwittingly facilitating their crime, all because of the agency’s extreme secrecy, and because it was acting outside the bounds of the law — far from the first or last such instance in the CIA’s history." when a source that Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine) "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" says so. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that later in the article, the author states, "Though far from definitive, these allegations line up with theories about the lead-up to September 11 that have long floated around...". That statement still levies that Misplaced Pages should still refrain from giving undue weight to a theory that is far from proven. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- That isn't what Jacobin says. This is a source on Misplaced Pages's list of approved sources that calls the report "A recently unearthed bombshell court filing". Even though the bombshell filing has been "studiously ignored by the media and political establishment" the reporter says that "The agency then worked in concert with the Bush administration to cover all this up, with each using the screwup to launch several foolish wars, funnel more power and resources to themselves, and go on a spree of yet more lawbreaking." It is important to tell readers that "instead of the Saudi government, it was the United States’ own intelligence agency that played the leading role in shielding the 9/11 hijackers from detection and unwittingly facilitating their crime, all because of the agency’s extreme secrecy, and because it was acting outside the bounds of the law — far from the first or last such instance in the CIA’s history." when a source that Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine) "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering" says so. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not, see wp:undue and wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are not what? Not arguing that we should exclude coverage from this reliable source? Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, try reading what I have written, here and elsewhere more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are not what? Not arguing that we should exclude coverage from this reliable source? Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Chances last a finite time - Please read the FAQs at the top of this talk page. It states
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- History good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- GA-Class aviation articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- GA-Class Suicide articles
- Unknown-importance Suicide articles
- Suicide articles
- GA-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- GA-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- GA-Class Salaf articles
- Unknown-importance Salaf articles
- Salaf task force articles
- GA-Class Sunni Islam articles
- Unknown-importance Sunni Islam articles
- Sunni Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- GA-Class New York City articles
- Top-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Organized crime articles
- Unknown-importance Organized crime articles
- Organized crime task force articles
- GA-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- GA-Class Skyscraper articles
- High-importance Skyscraper articles
- WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Top-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class September 11, 2001 articles
- Top-importance September 11, 2001 articles
- WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report