Talk:September 11 attacks

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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, 64: 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 [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?

A1: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Wikipedia. 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.[1]

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.

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.

September 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

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
July 13, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
October 27, 2018	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, September 11, 2023, and September 11, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Aviation: Accidents

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Death: Suicide Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disaster management 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Military history: Intelligence / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

New York City Top‑importance

	New York City portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) High‑importance

	New York (state) portal 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)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia / September 11 / History Top‑importance

	United States portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	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).

Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal 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
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.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Noam Cohen (11 September 2011). "On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars'". The New York Times.
Brian Keegan (November 17, 2020). "How 9/11 Shaped Wikipedia". Slate (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021.
Stephen Harrison (September 8, 2021). "How Wikipedia Grew Up With the War on Terror". Slate (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021.
Alex Pasternack (September 11, 2021). "How 9/11 turned a new site called Wikipedia into history's crowdsourced front page". Fast Company. Retrieved September 13, 2021.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 89 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 14 times. The weeks in which this happened:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Moved, 17 January 2004, Discussion
RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, Not moved, 21 October 2004, Discussion
RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, Moved, 20 August 2008, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Not moved, 13 October 2010, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 31 March 2014, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 13 February 2021, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, Not moved, 14 February 2021, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Procedural close, 23 February 2021, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 26 January 2024, Discussion
RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 9 February 2024, discussion.

Section sizes

Section size for September 11 attacks (45 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	19,430	19,430
Background	5,368	55,357
Osama bin Laden	7,896	7,896
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda members	4,597	4,597
Motives	20,052	20,052
Planning	9,949	9,949
Prior intelligence	7,495	7,495
Attacks	3,414	74,754
Crashes	27,987	27,987
Casualties	30,667	30,667
Damage	9,984	9,984
Rescue efforts	2,702	2,702
Reactions	3,391	57,859
Immediate response	8,781	8,781
Domestic reactions	7,805	17,806
Hate crimes	5,471	5,471
Discrimination and racial profiling	1,846	1,846
Muslim American response	1,681	1,681
Interfaith efforts	1,003	1,003
International reactions	17,734	17,734
Military operations	10,147	10,147
Aftermath	88	44,372
Health issues	9,907	9,907
Economic	7,127	7,127
Effects in Afghanistan	7,023	7,023
Cultural influence	4,157	4,157
Government policies towards terrorism	9,749	9,749
Legal proceedings	6,321	6,321
Investigations	21	32,122
FBI	9,379	9,379
CIA	2,195	2,195
Congressional inquiry	6,274	6,274
9/11 Commission	4,194	4,194
National Institute of Standards and Technology	6,076	6,076
Alleged Saudi government role	3,983	3,983
Rebuilding and memorials	32	20,064
Reconstruction	8,774	8,774
Memorials	11,258	11,258
See also	1,222	1,222
References	17	76
Notes	28	28
Citations	31	31
Bibliography	10,519	10,519
Further reading	2,890	2,890
External links	5,115	5,115
Total	323,780	323,780

Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all

WP:DROPTHESTICK. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — Czello ^(music) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

RfC on lead collage of photos

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

History and geography

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Ah, no worries. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.Moxy🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]