Talk:September 11 attacks

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

Old talk archived at:

Naming of 7WTC

The latest edit changed the name of "Seven World Trade Center" to "World Trade Center Seven"; I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, as nearly all references I see for the WTC complex buildings have the number before the letters. 1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC, etc. If the editor (User:Milk) can justify this change, please do. In fact, the editor should notice that the exact paragraph he edited has the phrase "One and Two World Trade Center." Should 7WTC be treated differently because it wasn't technically part of the WTC development? --Golbez 04:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

MEMRI

Why the hell are we using MEMRI as a source? They are obviously heavily biased against Arabs and Muslims, and could almost be considered a hate group.

If there *are* any other sources for the same information that come from groups besides, say, FLAME or any other sort of thinktank-like organization (whether it is pro-israeli or pro-arab), then I'd not object to its use here.

But MEMRI? Come on, people.

--68.110.71.34 18:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI is controversial, but it's what they choose to include is controversial. It seems as if their translations are accurate. WhisperToMe 17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

I have a number of pictures of Manhattan, including by the sealed-off area around GZ, taken a week after the attacks. I've released them under CC-BY-ND, and they are available at [1]. HTH, KeithTyler

If You Were President on 9/11?

Something I wonder about is how other, ordinary Americans would have reacted if they were President of the United States on 9/11? Say what you want about Bush, and I can say quite a bit. But there are a lot of people on this Earth who should thank whatever deity they worship that I was not President of the United States on 9/11. My response would have been Biblical in proportions. It would have been the stuff of legends. Osama bin Laden most certainly would not be free by now. Some nations would probably only be a memory. And I would not have cared what the rest of the world thought of my actions. That's how mad I was on September 11th. It scares me to think of what I would have done if I were in Bush's position. You think Bush is a reckless cowboy, just consider what oridinary Americans, myself included, would have done in his shoes. What would you have done?

JesseG 02:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JesseG, this ain't about opinion. Wikipedia isn't meant to be POV. WhisperToMe 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right in many ways (though this is nothing to do with the article). I don't know what I would have done. However it disturbs me that what was actually done (among other things) was to continue sitting reading a children's book for several minutes after being told about the attacks. DJ Clayworth 15:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

US/Eurocentric Article Pieces

I find the article to have many moments that are worded from a perspective of the US and it's allies in a tone that is for an audience of the US and it's allies.

Examples:

Earlier revelations
... The setting of that open-ended standard was treated as a refusal based on sympathy with and dependence on Al Qaida, and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.

I am concerned that this could be interpreted as meaning the world community held that opinion by someone reading it some considerable time removed from now. I feel we must make sure this doesn't sound like the world was against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but the U.S. & the majority of the U.N. at this time.

Effects
...As well as the invasion of Afghanistan, claims of a strong link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the argument that the attack demonstrated the need to preemptively strike at forces hostile to US and western interests, were used by the US Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and although prior to the 9/11 attacks it was conventional wisdom that such links existed, the issue was hotly questioned afterwards. The official panel investigating the attacks reported that, while contacts were made, it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

There is not enough clarity that the inferred relationship between Iraq & the hijaackers was held mainly by the US and future coalition partners.

Also calling the acts terrorists without qualifying that term as being the US & it's allies' perspective infers that the world-at-large considered it a terrorist attack. There are many people that view the attack as terrifying, but can understand the view from the attackers that it was an unconventional attack in a war they declared. By not being careful in stating it is the US & Allies' view we run the risk of misrepresenting the act. Duemellon

I think that the attack was viewed by most countries and people as terrorist - Nethertheless, we should clarify that it is "widely regarded as terrorist". WhisperToMe 17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

However, whether it was popularly regarded as a terrorist attack or not, the terminology of calling it "terrorist" implies a degree of depravity, wickedness, and unwarranted cruelty. I feel that calling it "terrorist" without further qualification of perspective, doees a great disservice to the global minority who refer to it as a revolt, revenge, or an act of war. In other words: An opinion held by the majority is still an opinion. So statements referring to it as "terrorist" without qualification of who's perspective it is, associates an opinion. I think the word "terrorist" Needs to be plastered throughout this article, but it needs to be qualified as a perspective. --Duemellon 12:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the need to create a more NPOV. I removed the part claiming that the Iraq-Al Quaeda link was conventional wisdom, and am also a little disturbed by the tone of the Arab/Muslim reaction segment. Perhaps it would be best to flesh out those parts in more neutral wording, I don't think anyone would be against it as long as there isn't a tendency to slant things the other way. Yitzhak 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Emotional & perspective response

I'm encouraged by the intentional inclusion of some mention of the emotional response to the events were included. I'm also encouraged that they appear to be properly noted for the perspective they have. However, I think we could elaborate more on the emotional/psychological impact of the event & perspectives at the time.

I feel this could be important to properly frame the context for future readers by including the sentiments floating around the event.

Something needs to include the increase in National pride, solidarity, support, concern, and sympathy expressed by the general US citizenry for the duration immediately after the attacks.

Something needs to elaborate about how much the event disrupted daily life throughout the land as fear of a follow-up attack caused widespread anxiety attacks, lost wages due to sick days, drop in all forms of travel, exacerbated an economic downturn, and innundation with information.

A later polarization of the populace into various groups some claiming victimhood of the US and others claiming it was painful retribution (or a range in between).

I think it's important to properly include the emotional reaction of the general population and the way it changed over time. But I'm terrible at writing those things, so I'm wondering what could be said.

I support this, as well. It would be highly valuable to convey to those too young to remember or those not in the country at the time, the widespread psychological impact it caused. It was unlike anything I've ever seen. Even more interesting would be a discussion of what impact it still has today. Any sociologists care to bite, please? Miss Puffskein 04:58, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article's last paragraph

Hi,

The last paragraph of the articles is dubious. It not true that the theories of conspiracy are accurate.

I think the addition of the Arabic media's response is appropriate in general. However, I think the presentation of it in this article was not done very well. I propose a new section where we discuss or compare global faction's opinion & perspective on the events & their reaction to the U.S.'s reaction. --Duemellon 12:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're very right. But that last paragraph is a quote. It's a fact that the Egyptian publication said it, even if what they said is disputed. I'll make it clearer that it's a quote, and remove the dispute notice. (If you object, let me know.) Quadell (talk) 12:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

One more thing: It is probably prudent to avoid using relative temporal terms from a basis of contemporary time (In other words, using "recent" to describe the time the article was posted). In twenty years that article will not be recent. ;) --Duemellon 14:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Should we start a new article on kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories? The supposed Israeli attack on the WTC is coming back again. - Tεx τ urε 18:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's less kooky to believe that Mossad was trailing the 9/11 terrorists to get information on what they were up to. It's well documented that a wide Israeli "art student" spy ring was operating inside the U.S., and was discovered and kicked out, while the 9/11 hijackers were also entering the U.S. Mossad is top-notch -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they were onto the 9/11 plot (or at least the fact that there were al-Qaida ops in the U.S. planning something) while our FBI hadn't put the peices together yet. If those Israelis were Mossad agents, and that's at least plausible in my opinion, then you can see why the State Department wouldn't want to make a big fuss about it. No point in making our ally look bad. So those links aren't necessarily of the "The Israelis done it!" variety. Quadell (talk) 19:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

There is that September 11 rumours and misinformation page that would have some of the conspiracy theories that you have referred to. Arno 06:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the link to 911truth.org

Their onsite Editorial policy and disclaimer says enough, if you ask me:

"We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at 911Truth.org. Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best. - We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur. - Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion. - Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones that might alienate potential allies."

It's called NPOV. That is why Wikipedia will not allow you to label that link that way. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe 17:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with WhisperToMe, this isn't about NPOV, this is about voting republican. He is one, that much becomes clear to us, and that is why he does not want to believe that things have been covered up. (Unsigned anon comment)

For one, I don't plan on voting for Bush at all -_- - I'm doing this in the name of NPOV. There are people who believe there is a coverup and there are people who don't, so to adhere to the NPOV principle, we must label the link in a factual manner. - And please sign comments with four tildes! WhisperToMe 23:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Bush activist. I think much of what's on 911truth is probably correct. But I also respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and it is not acceptable to call the site "a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup and related facts" on Wikipedia. That's just the way it goes here, like it or not. Quadell (talk) 02:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some OverGeneralization

This article states that Sadam Hussein is a muslim. But it is not the case and Irak was a laic country.

While Iraq's government and law were ostensibly secular, Saddam was in fact a Sunni Muslim.
--KeithTyler 20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I expect he still is a Muslim (not "was"). Rmhermen 04:57, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe

WhisperToMe, why do you think the assertion that al Qaeda was unquestionably involved in the attack should be removed from the lede paragraph? --Golbez 06:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove that. Come to think of it, I thought I added it back. Some other guy removed it and I added it back, I think. Maybe I made a mistake... WhisperToMe 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Nope, I didn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=5536845&oldid=5536701

Instead of removing it, I'd prefer phrasing it differently, but I was lazy at the time. WhisperToMe 23:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, er, either way, what you put in seems quite good. :) Sorry if I wrongly accused. --Golbez 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam an enemy of al-Qaida

195.7.55.146, while it's true that the Ba'athist Iraq government was not an ally of the Islamist al-Qaida network, this part of this article isn't the place to say it. If you look through the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the topic is fully covered there. Please stop engaging in a revert war. Quadell (talk) 16:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

But the opposite is implied in that sentence. Surely it should be noted that while one (afghanistan) was connected to Al-Qaida, the other (Iraq) was not - 195.7.55.146

august 6th presidential briefing and CIA failures

What I'm missing here is the briefing the president received on august 6th called 'Osama bin Ladin determined to strike US" Why does the text so far doesn't mention anything about the risk Al-Qaida was to US security? Why doesn't the text mentions anything about failures of the CIA and FBI? Maybe I overlooked something? A source for the august 6th briefing can be found here. Bontenbal 08:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the article leaves out....THE WHOLE TRUTH!

Learning from the September 11 Attacks By Mark Weber - September 15, 2001 With thousands of victims and riveting images of death and destruction, war has come home to America with terrible, devastating suddenness. Together with our fellow citizens, we mourn the many victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building. But beyond the feelings of grief and fury must come clarity and understanding.

President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."

But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the U.S. was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these well-organized attacks of suicidal desperation.

These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.'" (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)

Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and warplanes in, for example, Iraq.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent." Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "... We think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996).

President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism."

But such calls sound hollow given the U.S. government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks -- in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.

American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11 attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new U.S. military action against Israel's many enemies.

In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the U.S. government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.

What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade," but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice.

In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them.

But the jolting impact of the September 11 attacks -- which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky -- will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world. More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.

In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.

Over the long run, the September 11 attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.

For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11 attacks, this work will be more important than ever.

Published in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 2001 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pages 8-9. (This essay has been circulated worldwide, in English, German and Arabic, in print and on numerous websites.)

--- Bah, it's POV. We at Wikipedia use NPOV. Oh, and Al-Qaida has targeted places in France, Singapore, and many other countries. WhisperToMe 21:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo Civil War

User:Xed tries to put that Congo Civil War phrase in this article. I feel that all the sentence is doing is marginalizing September 11 in a POV manner. WhisperToMe 20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Congo Civil War was going on at the same time as the attacks, and was perhaps the most fatal event of the time period. Therefore its an important piece of information which puts the Sept 11 attacks into a global context.--Xed 21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, that's three million people from 1988 to nowadays. September 11 unfolded within one day. WhisperToMe 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, this was not within the context of a war. The Congo Civil war is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - Loweeel 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The war was going on at the same time--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. A lot of things went on at the same time that had nothing to do with 9/11. WhisperToMe 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War and it was the most fatal war of the period. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s. Only the worst type of Ugly American would not want it mentioned--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What does this have to do with an attack on America? Why are you comparing a single attack to a war? What you are trying to insert adds nothing to the article. - Tεx τ urε 22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hm, you are right about it being 1998, Xed. Still, that doesn't matter in this argument. The phrase doesn't belong there. WhisperToMe 22:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page is now protected due to the revert war. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, as an outside party, find completely inadequate the comparison text being repeatedly added by User:Xed. Just my two cents. --Cantus 23:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant and intrusive. A reference to the Congo Civil War could just as sensibly be inserted into every entry describing contempoaneous events. BTW, see the history of User:Xed: one confrontation after another... Wetman 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added him to the RFC >.< WhisperToMe 23:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Celebrating 9/11

Is there a reliable, objective source to substantiate this broad, inflammatory statement?

"In numerous cities of the Islamic world, in 2002, 2003 and again in 2004, the anniversary of the attacks, September 11, has been celebrated with crowded streets filled with dancing chanting men and celebratory gunfire, documented at al-Jazeera and very briefly in the Western media."

Links mentioning "celebration" of 911 attacks: [2], [3], [4], [5]. The particular reference I found was to a celebration in London on Sep 11 2004 [6], which contains: The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun had announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 [Suicide Attackers]," but had cancelled it at the last minute. I couldn't find anything mentioning dancing in the streets, however. Matt Stan 20:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- I didn't realize that London was considered part of the Islamic world already. Perhaps the article should name the celebrants as members of "the UK extremist group al-Muhajiroun" rather than inflaming the gentle reader with the image of barbarian hordes dancing all over the Islamic world in celebration of 9/11's carnage. Perhaps a quote from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be appropriate here if Wikipedia would like to record the reactions to 9/11 from Christian leaders.

- - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14&notFound=true

God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson. "Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population." Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes." Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "

Ramzi Binalshibh

Ramzi Binalshibh's name is misspelled "Binalsibh" in two places on the page.

No it's not "misspelled" - It is inconsistent. ;) WhisperToMe 19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore's allegations

The allegations that "all member of the bin Laden family" and other Saudis were ferried out of the USA during the three day flight ban following 9/11 are inaccurate.

"Civilian air travel across the United States was—for the first time ever—suspended almost totally for three days, with numerous locations and events affected by closures, postponements, cancellations, and evacuations. However, according to the controversial political commentator Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11, there was during this time an airlift to Saudi Arabia of all members of the bin Laden family in the USA at the time, leading to claims that potentiallly useful witnesses had been allowed by the US government to escape investigation"

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm But the key point is that the Saudis mentioned in these accounts were not flown out of the country — they were assembled at locations from which they could be conveniently flown out of the country once regular airline travel resumed. ........ No news account had a flight of Saudis leaving the U.S. until after the resumption of normal air traffic. The earliest date posited for a flight bearing bin Laden family members leaving the U.S. was September 14, a date by which the resumption of air travel had already begun:

OK, but the point that should be made is that the Bin Ladens were "rescued" by the US authorities and allowed to go to Saudi Arabia at the request of a high ranking Saudi official, rather than being treated as potential witnesses in a regular murder enquiry. It is usual, I understand, in a murder enquiry, for potential witnesses to be asked to remain available to police in case they have information that might be useful, such as, in this case, the location of their relative. Whether they flew straight to Saudi Arabia or whether they were flown first to some assembly point while everyone else in the US was grounded is perhaps useful to know, but it doesn't detract from the main point being made here. Matt Stan 20:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- The FBI had an opportunity to question the Saudis before they left the country and apparently did not consider them witnesses or otherwise deserving of detention.

War Crimes, Part 3

I deleted the section on war crimes. If anyone disagrees with me, I hope you will discuss it and provide some authority specifically stating that the attacks were a war crime. Also see the material in my previous comments, from the Red Cross.

I forgot to sign that. Maurreen 04:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore's allegations again

Moore's allegations have wide currency because of the success of his movie F-9/11 but, unfortunately, they are not entirely factually accurate according to Snopes.com, the 9/11 Commission, and journalists who have looked at the sequence carefully.

In that case you really HAVE to first make/be sure that Moore was actually wrong, which I very much doubt after thoroughly reading http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=coverup&startpos=100

Thanks for the links. I wish there was more substance to these allegations but he's really just grasping at straws. There were no unusual flights. Moore even admits it. He hinges the accusation that one flight was flown out of Tampa a day early based on local newspaper article speculation. Very weak. The Bush-Saudi connection exists, no doubt. The rich and powerful flock together. But then where do you go with it from there? That doesn't make them responsible for 9/11. It's a sideshow. Can you tie up all those Michael Moorish insinuations in a way that works for an encyclopedia and not some conspiracy theory rant? We want wiki NPOV facts, not innuendo and fiction.Alberuni 05:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the conspiracy speculation limited to the conspiracy section of this main page. If the conspiracy needs alot of explicating, there is a wiki dedicated to just that. Conspiracies are interesting and potentially damning but unless backed up by strong facts, I believe they detract from this otherwise solid and important article. Alberuni 20:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm: In the two days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the U.S. government allowed bin Laden family members to fly within the country during a general ban on air travel: True. Matt Stan 09:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"charter aviation was allowed to resume on the morning of September 13, several hours before the Tampa-to-Lexington flight is said to have departed, which would mean that the plane, which Vanity Fair says was chartered, did not need any clearance to fly. Overall, it appears that all flights -- the ones gathering up Saudis domestically and the one from Boston to Jedda -- took place after the government allowed aviation to resume." [7] Alberuni 15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And from the same source: Clearly bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after the September 11 attacks, and this was effected with the approval and assistance of the American government. Matt Stan 09:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? That bin Laden family members are somehow guilty by association of the crimes of Osama bin laden? The FBI knew who was flying, they could have questioned or arrested anyone on any flight leaving the USA, as I'm sure they would if they had even a sliver of a reason. They authorites detained more than 1200 innocent Muslims on various immigration and other pretexts in the weeks after 9/11 "just in case" they were involved in terrorism. Would you have all Saudi Arabians in the USA and all bin Laden family members arrested and held in detention because of their surnames, nationality, or religion despite the lack any evidence of criminal wrongdoing? Alberuni 15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am no supporter of any conspiracy theory. The idea that the Saudis requested that their nationals should be removed from USA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, particularly when it was announced that Osama Bin Laden was a prime suspect, is not fantastic. (Moore shows an interview with the Saudi minister which attests to this.) The fact that the US acquiesced to this request, given the economic dependency that various US interests have on Saudi goodwill, is not surprising. The fact that a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave, appears to be from independent sources. What is surprising is that any wikipedian should wish to censor the fact that an Oscar-winning journalist has reported this story. I think the intrinsic interest that this story has means that it should remain prominent in this article. I fear that it is embarrassment and insecurity of position that is prompting my censors. Matt Stan 00:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all, censorship and defense of the Bush administration are completely anathema to me. It's funny that I would even be accused of it. Please don't be paranoid. I am just trying to be objective. I agree with your basic premise that global economic dependence on Mideast oil contributes to US foreign policies of propping up repressive regimes like the Saudi government, waging wars on Iraq, building military bases in Saudi Arabia, and defending Israel (considered a bulwark against Soviet domination of the Mideast at one time); and that the al-Qaida movement and 9/11 attacks represent radical resistance to these US foreign policies. These foreign policy issues need to be explored but how do the bin Laden family flights after 9/11 explore those issues? If the White House gave special permission for bin Laden family flights after 9/11 as Michael Moore claimed, then that would presumably reflect the tip of the iceberg of US-Saudi relations. I think Michael Moore hoped that F-9/11 would cause viewers to question US foreign policies that led to 9/11 instead of believing government propaganda that "terrorists hate America because of our freedom" and i commend him for that. Unfortunately, the issues are so complex and convoluted that people can't begin to peel the layers of US foreign policy intrigue so Moore's rabble-rousing populist message ends up feeding anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hysteria because viewers ask, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" In fact, the flights carry very little significance, if any, because apparently no special permissions were granted. The danger in using weak or forged arguments should be clear from the Dan Rather case. It can backfire against the accuser and lower the credibility of an otherwise good case. Even though close US-Saudi ties deserve scrutiny, there does not appear to have been anything particularly unusual, illegal, or covered-up in the bin Laden family flights. The bin Laden family members and other Saudis were understandably fleeing from what they expected to be an ignorant violent backlash against innocent Arabs, Muslims and people surnamed "bin Laden". You claim that the "US acquiesced to this request" but apparently there were no special privileges to fly internationally during an overall public flight ban as Michael Moore asserted in F-9/11 and no privileges were issued even domestically as Snopes.com claims but has been debunked elsewhere, as I noted above. You claim that "a US official has reportedly taken responsibility for deciding to allow the Bin Ladens to leave" but there is no evidence that they would or should have been detained. The FBI had an opportunity to question them but had no reason to detain any of them. These are people who would be much more likely to become targets of al-Qaida than members of al-Qaida. The US is not dependent on goodwill of Saudi elites. The US is trying to protect the Saudi elites from bin Laden! If people are suggesting that the Saudis on those flights after 9/11 were involved in the 9/11 attacks but the White House let them leave the country, then I suggest the issue be explored under Conspiracy Theories. I don't think it should clutter the documentation of Effects of the Attacks/Grounding of Flights. All of above IMHO. Alberuni 15:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If a relative of yours were suspected of murder, would you not think it reasonable that the police might say to you "Hang about, mate. You might have some information that will help us catch the suspect"? Or would you expect them to say, "Gosh, there's something else going on here. I'm not going to use a weak of forged argument to detain you. You'd better get out of the country fast. And never mind if you have information that might help us catch our suspect. We'll do without that because there's something else going on here!. Matt Stan 11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you think that bin Laden family members were admitted to the USA, allowed todonate money to Harvard University, own property and invest in US businesses without the FBI knowing that they were related to a man who was already the world's most wanted terrorist prior to September 11, 2001? Do you think the bin Laden family members were not already questioned, investigated and probably under surveillance by the FBI/CIA? You think they had new information about Osama's whereabouts but were spirited out of the USA by the Bush administration because...............? Please elaborate. What does Michael Moore think? There is a conspiracy wiki for the discussion. Alberuni 14:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The something else going on is that the US is evidently treating some people as above the law. Why that is can plausibly be explained by the level of Saudi investment, including that of the Bin Laden family itself, in the US. There's no conspiracy there. The only conspiracy is that there are some who would like to cover this story up because they find it embarrassing and, no doubt, because, as Alberuni has written, people might say, "Why are those rich Saudis allowed to fly when ordinary Americans can't? Their names are BIN LADEN! They should have been arrested!" Surely that IS the point. We can explain: those rich Saudis are allowed to fly BECAUSE they are rich and powerful. Never mind that they just might be able to give us information that just might help us catch our suspect (ostensibly the most wanted man in the world), as would be the case in other murder enquiries - yes, I've been watching Columbo. There is something indecent about letting the Saudis fly away just like that, whichever way you look at it, and it is surely a relevant part of the story of 9/11. I deem those who revert the facts that I put into the main article to be the conspirators here. If my relative were suspected of murder and I said, "Sorry mate, I'm pissing off to Arabia and I'm not coming back", I think the police might get an order to take away my passport, pending future enquiries. But if I'm called Bin Laden then it's, "Yes, of course, sir. Have a nice trip!" Matt Stan 19:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How were they "treated above the law"? They were allowed to fly, like everyone else, AFTER the ban on charter flights was lifted 3 days after 9/11. [8] Michael Moore was mistaken about this point. (Please excuse me for disputing the allegations of an Oscar-winning movie director). If you believe innocent people should be harassed just because they are Saudi, Muslim, or members of the bin Laden family - even though they are upstanding community members, 100% innocent of any crimes and there is no reason to suspect otherwise - well, then you should understand why they would want to leave the country in a hurry. See Balbir Singh Sodhi for details. If one of your relatives commits murder and you are not involved in any way, the police will not (should not) take away your passport or deny you your basic rights. Why should they? You haven't committed a crime. Out of curiousity, what is your opinion about locking up innocent Japanese-Americans at Manzanar during WWII? Alberuni 21:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 9/11 commission reported that it was Richard Clarke (yes, the same Richard Clarke who was so critical of Bush) who was the highest ranking official to sign off on allowing the bin Laden family members to leave. They also found there was no higher political pressure to do so, as reported by the press, including The Washington Post [9].

www.911truth.org

There have been alot of annoying anonymous reverts regarding this link.

911Truth.org is a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup.
911Truth.org is a website that states that there is a coverup of the true cause of 9/11 by the U.S. Government.

It is neutral to describe the website that states that there is a U.S. government coverup of the true cause of 9/11. It is not neutral to refer to a campaign to educate the public about "the Sept. 11th coverup." The factual basis of a Bush administration cover-up is not a neutral fact. (I wish it was; I'd like to hear it). It is an opinion. Why is this such a difficult concept? Wikipedia shouldn't take a position on whether or not there is a U.S. government cover-up. Wikipedia can report facts related to the purported cover-up. Let's report facts and stop the silly revert war over the description of this link. Alberuni 21:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"World Trade Center attacks"

Why is this page being moved now? I don't recall a poll to move this back... WhisperToMe 01:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a problem? It looks like a redirect from WTC attacks with no change in content here. Alberuni 01:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still is a problem because it ruins all of the redirects. If one wants to change the title of a popular article, he or she should ask around first. WhisperToMe 01:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As for the title itself, September 11 consisted of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania incidents. WhisperToMe 01:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing comma

I'm going to move this article to put in the comma missing after "2001" in the title. Maurreen 12:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there is no missing comma 'September 11, 2001, attacks' just looks naff and silly. There's also no grammatical rule that allows for a comma there (September 11 2001 is essentially an adjective here - you don't put commas between adjectives and their nouns!). Personally I'd prefer no comma in the title. Jongarrettuk 13:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor did the person making the spurious move bother fixing the literally hundreds of links in other articles to what suddenly became a redirect. I've moved it back. - David Gerard 14:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hadn't realized a comma would be controversial. I checked in three books and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Perhaps the two of you are used to writing dates in the format "11 September 2001," which would call for no commas at all. Maurreen 15:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current style (as if the comma isn't part of the sentence) seems to be the one most used here. The main problem with a change like this is that it's a really popular and heavily-linked page - click on 'What links here' and see. Probably the best thing to do for moves of a popular page is to take a straw poll on the subject. Then convention is that whoever advocates the move gets to go to every linked article and fix the link so it isn't a redirect ;-) (I had to do this when I moved UFO to Unidentified flying object ... and serve me right) - David Gerard 16:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moral of the story: Ask first. If a lot of people scream bloody murder, then don't. Furthermore, I should point out that while the article has no comma, the talk page does. Schism! --Golbez 17:05, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

D'oh! Fixed - David Gerard 17:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just searched on google under 'September 11, 2001 attacks' - this version wins out easily. Jongarrettuk 20:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The comma is correct. Either "11 September 2001 attacks" or "September 11, 2001, attacks". The year is technically an appositive in the second form and, therefore, requires two commas.

It is a pity that carelessness or ignorance has left hundreds of incorrectly written links throughout Wikipedia. Something this important and widespread should be handled correctly as a matter of public education. Besides, I thought that a robot propagated the changes to links. No?

I urge that correct usage be instituted. Shorne 06:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See also discussion on the Village Pump. This is not a universal accepted rule, although we have not established its range. Note especially U.S. Senate Resolution 173: Title: A resolution condemning violence and discrimination against Iranian-Americans in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Rmhermen 13:14, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider US senators very good arbiters of English usage.

I agree that "Attacks of September 11, 2001" is better. Note, however, that a comma is still required after the year in "The attacks of September 11, 2001, were …".

There are good reasons to insist on the second comma. Consider "On September 11, 2001 attacks were waged against the US." That means that two thousand one attacks were waged on September 11 of an unstated year. Shorne 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That example is completely different, "On September 11, 2001" modifies "were" not "attacks". Rmhermen 19:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comma references, compromise title

The link on the Village Pump discussion goes to the style guide of a German wire service. Germany's a great places, but it's not the best authority on English usage. Nor is the number of Google hits, as someone mentioned in a discussion elsewhere. I have at least three references that say a comma should be used in a construction such as "September 11, 2001, attacks." Does anyone have anything authoritative to counter that?

If the majority of you want to leave the comma out, so be it. But the title will be substandard. Or does anyone want to compromise? Maybe we can find a title none of us disagree with. Maurreen 01:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have no references that say that there should be a comma when September 11, 2001 is used as an adjective (Shorne is wrong to imply that 'September 11, 2001' could be in apposition to 'attacks' - it is clearly adjectival (see also appositive.) And I'm not sure what you regard as 'authoritative' - if you don't accept google as being a guide to common usage, what do you accept? There is already a redirect on 'September 11, 2001, attacks'. If we go for a 'September 11 2001 attacks' style formulation, the consensus is clearly for just one comma.

That said, in my opinion We should just call the page '9/11' on the grounds that that is what it is most commonly referred to as. Jongarrettuk 06:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never said that September 11, 2001 was in apposition to attacks. It is 2001 that is in apposition to September 11. And that is why 2001 requires two commas.

Maurreen is quite right. Google is no style guide. Shorne 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Common usage is not synonymous with correct usage. Here are a few references. I can probably find more without much trouble.

From The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual: "When a phrase refers to a month, day and year, set off the year with commas."
From The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: "When day, month and year are given together, use a comma after the day, and use a comma or some other punctuation after the year."
From Working With Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors: "Use a comma before and after the abbreviation for a state following a city, and before and after a year following a month and date."
From Webster's New World College Dictionary: "A comma is ordinarily used ... to set off the main elements in an address; a title following a person's name; and the year if the month, day, and year are given."

None of these references give exceptions.

I am OK with calling the page "9/11." Maurreen 15:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The two commas are of course correct. But if people can't agree to that, we could just drop the year and use September 11 attacks. Gzornenplatz 15:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am not content with "9/11", which reflects a US bias. That date would be written "11/9" in many other countries. It is commonly used only because it happens to coincide with 911, the telephone number for emergency services in the US (and Canada and a few other countries).

I recommend "Attacks of September 11, 2001". It's clearer anyway. Shorne 17:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen says 'common usage is not synonymous with correct usage'. Ummm, yes it is. English is a living language, it changes, it does not obey strict rules. If most people phrase something a particular way, it is, necessarily, accepted usage. And accepted usage changes.

Manuals of style, or at least the good ones, seek to report how people actually use language. Just like an encyclopaedia does not determine what something means, nor does a manual of style prescribe - it reports. If the language people use changes so that it is different from a manual of style, the manual is out of date. This may, or may not, mean that the old usage is considered 'wrong', it can never mean the new usage is 'wrong'. In particular, it means that a manual of style can never be a determinant of 'correct' language, it can only report what the authors (one hopes after research) have found, at that time, to be common usage.

So where are we? If two commas is used frequently by the writers above, and by many others - this is strong evidence that it is 'correct' US English. Similarly if one comma is used frequently by others - it may also be 'correct'. Google is, of course, no determinant, but it is indicative of common usage, particularly of US English. It shows one comma as being clearly the more common usage, this is strong evidence that the one comma variant is standard (ie 'correct') US English too. There are, of course, also many articles with two commas - which reinforces the argument that the two comma variant is a commonly accepted usage. Conclusion; on the evidence available, both the one and two comma variants are used in standard US English, and in this sense both may be considered 'correct'.

As far as what the article should be called. I'd still suggest 9/11 as it is the most common way this is referred to in the English speaking world - it's certainly referred to 9/11 in UK English. If the 'September 11 2001 attacks' formula is kept, there are good reasons for just having the one comma version. (1) The one comma version appears to be the most common version; (2) The two comma version is jarring to a non-American - it just looks wrong (even if it is an acceptable variant in US English). This is an International encyclopaedia, so point (2) is a strong argument. The one comma version should prevail. Jongarrettuk 19:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Written usage is conservative. Of course it changes over time. But good usage is still that of the people whose standards are the most widely appreciated as being well-informed and proper. It matters not that many people write accomodate and accordian; those are incorrect spellings and will continue to be so regarded for a long time to come.

As for "September 11, 2001, attacks", you'll find few people who flatly assert that using two commas is wrong, but you will find many people—people who know what they are doing—who say that using only one comma (or, worse yet, none) is wrong and who can explain their claim.

I don't consider Google to be a representative body of good writing. The fact that the four style guides cited by Maurreen, along with my own practice (which, of course, is perfect in every way :-)), agree that two commas are needed is strong evidence that that is the most accepted style for edited text. (Most of what appears on Google is not edited.) Shorne 19:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my thinking: "September 11, 2001 attacks" is the name of the attacks. Names don't have to be grammatically correct. Note that a Hello world program ought to be a "Hello, world" program, but no one uses this (correct) construction, so the name should be "Hello world", even though the name uses incorrect grammar. (In a more base example, the Perineum is called a 'tain't, but there is no redirect for 'tisn't.) I think a proper article should say "The 'September 11, 2001 attacks' were carried out on September 11, 2001, by al-Qaida." See the difference? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Working toward a compromise: Does anyone object to either of these?

September 11 attacks
Attacks of September 11, 2001

Maurreen 02:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The second makes natural linking to hard. Many links would have to be piped links. The first sounds good but maybe "September 11th attacks"? Rmhermen 03:30, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I like the second. The first is risky: what will we do if some attacks occur on a future September 11? Shorne 03:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Summarizing title options

September 11, 2001 attacks

Rationale for:

Simplicity, maintains status quo.
Appears to be much more common than the two-comma version (Source: search on google).
One opinion is that no second comma is needed because the entire date is an adjective for "attacks."
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a German wire service, supports the one-comma style for dates.
The Handbook of Technical Writing, 4th ed., Brusaw, Alred, and Oliu, indicates that dates can be written with or without a comma following the year.
One opinion is that names are not required to be grammatically correct.
One opinion is that "common usage" is not synonymous with "correct usage."

Rationale against:

Grammatically incorrect/ambiguous.

September 11, 2001, attacks

Rationale for:

Using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books. The only known exceptions are cases in which another punctuation mark follows the year and those in which the month is placed between the day and the year.
One opinion is that the second comma is needed because the year is in apposition to the date (September 11). The second comma serves to set the year off from the rest of the date. It avoids the appearance that "2001" is either a modifier or subject for "attacks."

14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rationale against:

Purely a US English construction. One opinion is that non-US readers will be unfamiliar with it.Jongarrettuk finds the second comma jarring (certainly to non-Americans).

The "US English construction" is the date format "M D, Y". Most English-speaking countries prefer "D M Y", a logical form that is increasingly common in the US as well (it has long been used in the military) and that avoids the clutter of commas altogether. If you want "M D, Y", you do need a second comma. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

which makes it very jarring to someone used to non-US English and no commas;) Jongarrettuk 21:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And there is not a consensus that the comma is required either. older≠wiser 15:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Appears to be a less common formulation than the one-comma version (Source: search on google).

It may be required by some U.S. grammarians but is probably not commonly used even there. Rmhermen 21:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

9/11

Rationale for:

Short.
Widely used in the United States, where the attacks happened.
Widely used in the United Kingdom (despite DD/MM formula being used for dates generally). [If anyone knows about the rest of the English-speaking world, plase add.]

It is widely used because other countries followed the US's lead. There is no other explanation for the use of "9/11" in a country that would write the date "11/9" (even Canada does so) and that has another telephone number for emergency services. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most common phrasing for the events by a long long long way (Source: search on google)
One opinion is that encyclopedias are meant to report what people call things. And wikipedia already has articles for 1, 2, 3, etc.
Any ambiguity would depend on which country you are in -- there is no ambiguity for British readers, for instance.

Rationale against:

Ambiguous in various ways. I mean not just whether it means Sept. 11 or Nov. 9, but "911" phone number for emergency calls in the U.S. or $9.11, etc.
Formal writing seldom uses numerals in place of the names of months.

Agreed. It is inappropriate as a title. I don't mind its use within articles, provided that the context is clear. Another reason to avoid it is that it may lose much of its punchiness as time passes. Will people twenty or thirty years hence know what "9/11" means? Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Rationale against:

Could be a problem if any other notable attacks happen on some other September 11.

Rationale for:

But such attacks haven't yet happened and we could have a disambiguation page if there was ever any future possibility that the phrase was unclear.

September 11th attacks

Rationale against:

Could be a problem if any other notable attacks happen on some other September 11.

Rationale for:

But such attacks haven't yet happened and we could have a disambiguation page if there was ever any future possibility that the phrase was unclear.

Attacks of September 11, 2001

Rationale for:

Avoids adjective pile-up
Precise and unambiguous construction of English, grammatically correct

Rationale against:

Could make natural linking too hard. Many links would have to be piped links.

What's wrong with simply redirecting a great variety of other forms to the new page? Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not a common formulation (only 82,000 hits on google - which is low compared with the other options here)

It's better in a title than in running text. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a news website or some such agency. Such other sources go with what is "snappy" or makes a catching news headline. Google results are not therefore, representative in this case. zoney ♣ talk 15:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistent with other articles (11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Casablanca Attacks, May 8 Bus Attack in Karachi, 2002 Karachi consulate attack, Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks almost every bombing, hostage crisis and siege on List of terrorist incidents)

I would suggest these others have randomly chosen, and in some cases, unencyclopaedic titles. zoney ♣ talk 15:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001

Rationale for:

The attacks are widely known by the date. Culturally, the date symbolizes the event, as the place indicates the event for "Pearl Harbor" and "the Alamo."
A Wikipedia search for "September 11, 2001" leads readers to this article.

Rationale against:

The title doesn't help anyone unfamiliar with the attacks, because it does not include that information.
Sounds like it should be a page covering all current events on September 11, 2001, not just the attacks.
This represents a pro-US bias.

Please feel free to add anything needed above. Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Just a note to say I have felt free to add to the above and have, indeed, done so. Jongarrettuk 06:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) as has Shorne

Libraries

FYI, the officially authorized Library of Congress subject heading--which controls what to look under in your library's catalog--is "September 11 Terrorist Attacks, 2001". PedanticallySpeaking 20:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this - what has the Library of Congress got to do with my library's catalogue? jguk 06:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- It probably has nothing to do with jguk's library. The Library of Congress subject headings pertain to many U.S. libraries. But the Dewey Decimal System is also very common in the USA.

Please accept my apologies for forgetting about the rest of the English-speaking world; the Library of Congress's decisions in general control how America's libraries catalog books. Please also understand that I am talking about subject headings and not call numbers--i.e. the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress classification are not at issue.
Now, the overwhelming majority of libraries in America do not catalog books themselves but rely on the Cataloging in Publication data supplied by the Library of Congress appearing on the title page verso of books. Second, librarians use what is called a "controlled vocabulary". This entire debate we're having on what to call the September 11th article is a good example. There's several different places we could put this article, just as there's several different phrases to describe "nuclear power" (e.g. "atomic power," "nuclear energy," "nuclear fission", etc.) What the Library of Congress does is create an "authorized" subject heading so that no matter what library you go into, all the books on "nuclear power" will be under that heading; it puts libraries on the same page. Most libraries in America use them exclusively and any library of any size will have the big set of red books containing all the subject headings authorized, fully cross-referenced with alternatives. There are a few libraries that put in additional subject headings beyond what's in the CIP data or create their own subject headings--e.g., the Hennepin County, Minnesota, public library was famous for its cataloging work under the iconoclastic Sanford Berman--but once the Library of Congress has spoken, generally that's what America's libraries use. Now, I know the Canadian Library and the British Library, which do the CIP work in their countries, uses different headings, so sometimes you'll find a book with CIP data from more than one and they never agree. Would be curious to know what the approved British and Canadian subject headings are for this topic. Finally, the entire LC authorities file is available on the web at http://authorities.loc.gov/. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Title poll?

Shall we narrow things down and mark which options we support or oppose?

Please update vote counts when voting. zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks (5-4)

Support

Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:03, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
zoney ♣ talk 15:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001, attacks (3-5)

Support

Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

9/11 (1-7)

Support

Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Too informal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:41, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

September 11 attacks (5-5)

Support

Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) (reluctantly—could become ambiguous)
Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
SimonP 15:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
zoney ♣ talk 15:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11th attacks (4-6)

Support

Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
SimonP 15:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ("September 11 attacks" would be better; this form seems to offer no real advantage)
Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The "th" is not our usual style. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Attacks of September 11, 2001 (7-3)

Support

Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Quite simply, the most encyclopaedic form here.
Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:38, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 14:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Rmhermen 21:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
SimonP 00:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

'September 11, 2001' and '7 December 1941'

The article seems to jump from the MM/DD/YY format to the DD/MM/YY format, and mostly uses the DD/MM format (eg 11 September). Also the very first sentence combines formats: The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001.

Is this just inconsistency (which should be changed to a US format of MM/DD/YY and MM/DD throughout)? Or is there some underlying purpose to it that I don't understand?

Just thought I'd ask before changing anything. Jongarrettuk 20:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's your fault.

...

Oh, you probably want an explanation. :) In your settings, you must have it set to display dates in the European format, "DD Month YYYY". But that only works for linked dates, which is why almost every date on the pedia is wikified. However, the article name in the lede is not, and should not (since it would then differ from the article title). That's why. --Golbez 21:23, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)