Talk:September 11 attacks

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

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.

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.

Please keep this notice at the top of the page, right here, so people will see it more easily. A sitewide policy on the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is under discussion at Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). There is a truce on the words for this article. For details, see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/"Terrorist" archive. Maurreen 07:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: The truce terms are roughly this: Keep the word "terrorist" in the first paragraph to give immediate concise information, leave in the couple of general references to "terrorist" (or variations of the word) and don't add any further description or labeling of the attacks or attackers as terrorist. Maurreen 16:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorist", "terrorism" and "freedom fighter"

I just found this interesting definition of terrorism on the website of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [1] It's called the "Academic Consensus Definition":

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988). Slim 01:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I would say that it is correct to call them Terrorists, but it is also correct to call them "Freedom fighters", what I don't think is correct is to refer to them as one, without also referring to them as the other. Hope this clarifies things! --Rebroad 15:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist in this instance is describing the attacks, which were unquestionably, methodologically, an act of terrorism. "Freedom fighter" is a POV label for the attackers themselves. One is factual, and the other is a point of view, and in any case not appropriate where you inserted it because it does not modify "people", it modifies "action". Graft 16:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think most people agree that both Terrorist and Freedom fighters are the same thing, but the phrases are opposing POV. They both have a cause, and the innocent people that die are victims as well as "collateral damage". Every act of harm can be viewed in this way. Every bomb. Every cause. It just requires you to look at it from a different perspective. For some people that can be quite hard to do. --Rebroad 19:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I’d like to suggest that we move on from the “terrorist” debate. The issue already had a lot of attention here. The consensus was that a sitewide policy is desired, and that this article would observe a truce in the meantime.

If using or not using “terrorist” and similar or related words is important to you, please discuss it at the policy development page. That page has had no discussion since November 21.

If a policy is developed, I expect this article will conform. Otherwise, please respect the current truce. Maurreen 17:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about observing a truce on the word "terrorism." If a site-wide policy is adapted, then fine, but it hasn't been yet, so there's no way any editor can be asked not to insert that word. Of course, others can remove it. But I think the point must be that editors are free to use the word, so long as it's not used in a way that's widely off mark. I agree with Graft here, that calling September 11 a terrorist act modifies the act, not necessarily the actors. Slim 06:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, is that what the "truce" means? Sorry, I just read the notice for a second time, and now I'm not sure what the phrase "there is a truce on those words" means. Could we have a definition of "truce" regarding the definitions we're arguing over? :-) Slim 10:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad, please stop the vandalism of this article. You inserted this morning that it was a "terrorist/freedom fighter" attack. This article is returned as the first item on a Google search for "September 11, 2001 attacks": see [2] You make Wikipedia look stupid with edits like that. I could understand the strong feelings if this was some kind of borderline incident, but it was an anonymous attack intended to kill thousands of non-combatants (using other civilians are weapons!) in order to spread fear throughout America and many other parts of the world. It was the Platonic form of terrorism. Slim 13:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary. I think you make Wikipedia look biased by your inclusion of the word "terrorist". --Rebroad 14:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, why do you say it was "anonymous" please? --Rebroad 14:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the archives of the talk pages, of which there are ten, only the first, oldest archive includes the word terrorist, so based upon the article name itself, it was decided long ago to drop the use of the word terrorist.
Reputable news mediea, that try to remain non-biases, avoid use of the words "terrorist" or "freedom fighter". Reuters for example.
The addition of the word terrorist, doesn't present the user with any addition facts. In the absense of the word, the reader can still make their own opinion of what to label them.
Ask yourself this: Why is it that an overwhelming majority of the people who want to include the word "terrorist" are American? In order to get a fair vote, we need proportional, global representation on this issue.

--Rebroad 14:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find this whole business of calling these terrorists "freedom fighters" to be offensive. Calling the al-Qaida terrorists who murdered thousands of people on that day freedom fighters is disrespectful to the memory of those innocent people who died in the attacks. Calling these people freedom fighters allows the illusion to be formed that what the hijackers did wasn't really that bad. But refusing to call the terrorists anything other than terrorists sends the message that what these people did was indeed a horrible crime against humanity.
JesseG 05:21, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a memorial site, JesseG. We must report in an NPOV manner and let the reader come to his or her conclusions. WhisperToMe 05:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) WhisperToMe 05:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WOW

I can't believe that there is debate on whether 9/11 was a terrorist attack on Wiki. This is very alarming to the future of both the Wiki project and free societies in general. If so many people can directly or indirectly sympathize with the attackers of 9/11, what does that say about truth in the world in its current state? Truly amazing. Those who disagree with, or harbor resentments towards the United States' for reasons economic or socio-political, (and there are many on Wiki) stun many of us by their inability to call a spade a spade on matters such as this. Wow. The world where these resentments get in the way of common sense and reality is truly a world sick and dying.

There is no right or wrong - black or white - up or down in the world as these folks know it. There is no truth, only unlimited options and excuses. We have lost our sails.

NPOV cannot exist, yet many here at Wiki believe it to levels that are bewildering.

10 November 2004 - Gavin Palone - signing off Wiki...for good.

Bye. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are debates on everything here, that's why we have more accurate informationthan a lot of places. In my opinion, we are better off without anyone who can't handle debate, and discussion in the furtherance of a quest for truth.Pedant 15:38, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

user:WhisperToMe has just pointed out to me that there is actually a debate going on as to whether September 11 was a terrorist attack. How sad! The word "terrorism" has no meaning if September 11 is to be called something else. The saddest thing is that users like Gavin Palone leave Wikipedia, when the project is in dire need of people like him. What was September 11, then? An attack by "activists," perhaps, akin to striding up to the World Trade Center with a clipboard and a loud hailer? Slim 05:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion was not whether it was a terrorist attack, but whether to describe it as such, etc. To participate in a related discussion, see Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). Maurreen 05:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What exactly defines a "terrorist" then? What criteria must be met? --kizzle 08:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

The thing that Gavin and Slim don't seem to understand is that the debates here on wiki aren't about whether the attacks were a GoodThing or a BadThing. Things can be very bad without being terrorism; murder, tortue and rape are all bad things that may or may not have anything to do with terrorism. The debate is about whether the attacks meet the definition of terrorist. Depending on the definition, you chose this can end up being a very close debate. People should not see this discussion as attacking the victims, the US or anyone else. Steven jones 12:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As Mo pointed out above, the debate isn't even over whether the attacks meet the definition of terrorist (which most people would agree they do, unequivocally). The debate (as I understand it) is over whether we can legitimately call them that and still maintain NPOV. Though I advocated avoiding the 'terrorist' label, outside of Wikipedia, I (and likely others who argued similarly) feel that these attacks were horrible acts of terrorism. But Wikipedia is not my space, and it does not carry my opinion. Graft 16:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to hear a definition of terrorism that would make September 11 something other than a terrorist attack. If someone has that definition, please post it here. September 11 fulfills all the criteria in my view: (1) There was no declaration of war; (2) there were no rules of engagement; (3) there was no claim of responsibility; (4) the targets were civilians; (5) there was no warning or time given to evacuate the area; (6) the purpose appears to have been the spread of terror among the civilian population. To call the attacks anything other than "terrorist" is an example of what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday". Slim 22:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Slim! Come on! This was a good argument you gave here, but since it wasn't in the debate on "terrorist", I didn't notice it until now. Why are you using 3 sections to discuss one topic?! Your distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" above seem to be one I can subscribe to, and as such I am inclined to agree that "terrorist" is more deserving than "freedom fighter" based upon the apparent lack of avoidance of "collateral damage". --Rebroad 14:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The distinction that is missed is that terrorism is generally defined as the attempt to acheive a n ideological goal through terror. The question then is was the action intended to cause a change of attitude through terror or simply to kill and damage the "infidel" infrastructure. On the flip side the action probably meets with the UN defn of genocide http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm, which is equally a stranger to the naive use of the word. Rich Farmbrough 08:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorism" is the new Communism. It's the Communism of the 00's. Every generation needs a new enemy that is very broadly defined, so that people can be rallied around it. If you think it's funny that people in the 60's were told to duck under tables in case of a nuclear attack you should also find it funny that Homeland Security has told us to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting, to tape over our windows in case of a biological attack. If seeing the Terror Alert level on the news does not make you think you're watching a movie with heavy references to 1984 you're not thinking.

The attacks do not meet the definition of genocide, since there is no intent to destroy an ethnic group. There is no intent to wipe out Americans, only to kill them in retaliation for attacks on Muslims - this is pretty clear. Thus, not genocide. No one in al-Qaeda has ever said anything like, "We need to remove Americans from the face of the planet" (as they've probably said about Israelis). Graft 15:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This discussion has made me consider some things, right from the minute I set my eyes upon the topic of it. The people who commited this attack may very well be freedom fighters, that they were fighting AGAINST freedom. When you kill a person, they loose existance and complete freedom in this world. By stating that they were fighting for freedom appears to be a giant hypocrisy. Terrorism seems to be a little flawed by the words meaning (by dictionary), however the word terrorism is forming a bigger meaning in the average internet connected person (the average person who will read this article), the meaning of the word to people is changing. Using terrorism will look biased to people like Rebroad, and using freedom fighter will look biased to others (looks like quite the loop). The term Kamakazi Attack (sp?) could just as easily be the correct term, but when it comes to correct terms it is not monolythic, I dont think use of the word terrorist is much of a problem myself. I personally would call the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse terrorism, and some other seemingly heartless people I have mentioned that too, seem to think it was a way of getting information to fight for freedom. Everybody seems to be all up in arms in this strange "us and them" attitude, how about "we" for a change. "Anybody claiming to be without bias is a fool or trying to fool you". My point is that we need to really consider things as we, and in the terms of "we" I think the word terrorist fits best because there are no other suggestions, and the term "Freedom Fighter" is contradictive and quite the hypocrisy. --Kintaro 12:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

question over what crashed into the pentagon

In response to a request to provide sources, I have included 3 URLs following the word Pentagon. Does anyone mind this? I am thinking that it might be more readable if the links in question are put in a seperate section, or under a conspiracy section if there is one. Comments please. Thanks, --Rebroad 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the link's I've added I found pretty quickly just searching Google for "pentagon crash conspiracy", so given a little more time, I could probably find some better examples that are better presented, and ideally with some references to experts involved, so that we can see how credible either scenario really is. --Rebroad 22:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a bit of reading up, and there's a fair bit of evidence either way as to whether it was or wasn't a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. I wasn't there when it happened, so I just don't know. In the absence of proof either way, should we claim it was fact if we're not sure? Please discuss. --Rebroad 22:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind also, that many would argue that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is in itself a POV, as it suggests to the reader that it is less likely to be the truth compared with the more commonly known story. If I must I could start quoting things that are now known to be true, but were once referred to as conspiracy theories! --Rebroad 23:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This school of thought, that there's "evidence either way" so everything should be given equal emphasis and equal time, is poor rationale at best, and I'd like to see people start actively resisting this dangerous trend here at Wikipedia. The evidence in one direction is spotty and rather goofy. The evidence in the other direction is nearly 100% definitive, not to mention the most reasonable according to Ockham's Razor. There's also "evidence either way" for a lot of crazy, crazy theories. But giving them high prominence in this article is not justified. Some critical thinking is in order, here. If you want to create a separate section about conspiracies where you include these links, that would be more easily justified. Graft 23:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May I point out how many POVs there were in your text above. I'll insert (POV) after each one, to highlight. I'm not necessarity disagreeing with you, please bear that in mind, but I am in my honest opinion, trying to keep within the letter of Wikipedia policy. That is that POVs don't belong, and that if there are two sides to a story, then they should be told, even if it means "writing for the enemy", which I may very well be doing here. I think first and foremost, we need to make sure we show we are making an effort to be impartial. One cannot deny these other views exist, and I believe it is the responsiblilty of us all to ensure those views are aired. --Rebroad 23:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the article on Ockham's Razor. A very interesting article. So, are you saying we need to count the assumptions for either variation, and whichever requires the most should be considered the conspiracy theory? I'm up for this challenge. Where should we do it? On here? --Rebroad 23:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, please don't edit other people's text. It's incredibly gauche and one of the rudest things you can do on Wikipedia. Secondly, I suggest you read the NPOV article carefully. Extreme minority opinions do not merit equal time or equal prominence; this would destroy all sense of proportion and drastically misrepresent the common understanding of many subjects. For example, we wouldn't give prominent mention to discussion of the theory that the moon landings were faked in the articles on the subject. Your arguments in the hypothetical (this COULD end up being proven correct SOME DAY, like some other so-called "conspiracy theories" were vindicated) could be used to justify any number of cracked theories. Shall we give them all equal time? Not hardly. Graft 00:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Graft, apologies for editing your article. I was trying to keep things readable, and save having to quote it all, but in future, I will do this instead if that is better. I can't fault your logic, you are absolutely right in what you say above.

I think my main concern is that I worry that these days, as has recently been proven legally, the media can and does lie [3]. We must no longer take for granted what we read/see in the news. Assuming that the majority of people do take the news for granted, it follows that the majority will be believing a lie about certain things. I think the only way to safeguard against this happening, it to ensure that we try to give all views an equal prominence. Some would argue that this would confuse people, but it would also mean that people can start to think more critically about things, and start using their brains to come to their own conclusions. This, IMHO can only be a good thing. --Rebroad 01:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia does not want conspiracy theories, nor are we required to give them equal time or prominent mention (if any at all). →Raul654 23:31, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad, Wikipedia works by consensus. Notice how many people have reverted your additions. Like Graft suggested above, your links might be acceptable in a conspiracy section or page. Maurreen 05:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont see motive in why they would not mention shooting the plane down, either way people would have died. However the arguments of who did the attacks and so forth is still questionable. I still think it was el queda, despite the fact of how fast things happened, how fast Dubya was given more power for instance, things like that seem planed by more then El Queda. With the amount of money dubya is getting from Clear Channel, I think this attack was his lottery ticket if anything. If it was a real conspiracy for war, rather then for just plain greed, I think different things would be happening now. --Kintaro 12:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: section for "historical comparisons"

I think a very good addition to this article would be to compare the events of September 11 and the events that followed with previous events in history. As mentioned earlier in this talk page, there was quite a good web page showing comparisons with the Reichstag fire, and I think it would be a valuable addition to this page. How civil am I, starting a discussion before going ahead and adding it to the page? --Rebroad 19:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That might be better as its own page. It could easily be long. Maurreen 21:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But with a very short summary and a link on the main page. --Rebroad 23:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to keep NPOV, as one's views on what events are "comparable" is largely affected by your POV. Supporters of Bush and Ashcroft's policies would probably object to the Reichtag comparison, for instance. And if an Islamist compared it to D-Day (a supposedly untouchable empire is suddenly and surpisingly attacked), that would rankle even me. It might be possible to make the page useful, and more than a non-stop revert war, but it would be difficult. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Some indication of "putting it all in proper perspective" is entirely appropriate. I think Rebroad is right though. A short summary (one paragraph of only a few lines) together with a link to an article that develops it further is all that's needed here. "Comparable" to me would mean comparable in relation to other recent disasters and assaults by the United States on Afghanistan and Iraq, and to other terrorist incidents. jguk 23:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Proper perspective" is POV. I think Quadell is right in that it would be hard to make such a section or page with wide agreement on what is comparable. Maurreen 00:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who ever said Wikipedia was easy? :) Have faith, be bold. --Rebroad 01:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a difficult project that's being proposed, and I have a funny feeling 99% of the time would be spent keeping Rebroad from injecting it with his/her particular POV. We don't routinely do these kind of historical comparisons for other events; there's no great need to do it here. And I think Quadell is correct in saying that such comparisons are inherently biased. This goes way out of the domain of encyclopedic material. Graft 03:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If one can't learn from history, what would be the point of documenting it? --Rebroad 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not original research, and it sounds like this article would be riddled with exactly that. And I agree wholly with Graft's assertion that most of the time there would be wasted keeping Rebroad from infecting the article with conspiracy theories. →Raul654 03:20, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, however, in this instance, there are more than enough facts to fill this document without needing to resort to conspiracy theories. --Rebroad 12:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if it did not qualify as original research (which IMO is arguably applicable), an article that is simply an analysis of facts (which a comparison would be) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia or even as a section within this article beyond a sentence or two. If you can link or reference a book or other source material which describes such an analysis, then you might want to include that material somehow. Your proposal however goes beyond the mere collection of facts, as such a comparison that you propose necessarily must include information above facts in the analysis of those facts, and thus spoon feeding. --kizzle 12:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I dont see motive in why they would not mention shooting the plane down, either way people would have died. However the arguments of who did the attacks and so forth is still questionable. I still think it was el queda, despite the fact of how fast things happened, how fast Dubya was given more power for instance, things like that seem planed by more then El Queda. With the amount of money dubya is getting from Clear Channel, I think this attack was his lottery ticket if anything. If it was a real conspiracy for war, rather then for just plain greed, I think different things would be happening now. --Kintaro 12:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette

My understanding is that the same boldness generally encouraged in articles is discouraged on talk pages. I believe it is usually considered bad form to change or move people's comments in a way that the writer disagrees with. Rebroad or anyone else, if you disagree with the placement of the "terrorist" notice, please state your concern and leave my writing as is, and where it is, unless you get a consensus. Maurreen 21:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification:The paragraph above applies specifically to

the notice on the word "terrorist." Maurreen 21:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include descriptions of geographical locations in the intro?

We seem to be in a bit of an edit war over whether to include descriptions of the locations of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the description. Please could a concensus be reached on this? Thanks, --Rebroad 12:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should include such descriptions as we should not assume that everyone knows where the Twin Towers were or where the Pentagon is. Many people don't. New Yorkers and Virginians are no doubt familiar with their locations - but I'd guess most people over here in the UK would not know the location of the Pentagon, for instance. It's really a case of "Think of the reader". jguk 12:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to say that they are in the United States? If people want to know the exact location of these buildings, then they need only click on the links to get a fuller description. The exact location is not IMHO relevant to this article. --Rebroad 12:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can really describe the attacks without saying where they happened. United States is too vague, and we're only talking about a few words anyway. Why not just leave them in, they're not exactly objectionable words, are they? jguk 12:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only objecting to their relevance, the words are very pretty :) --Rebroad 13:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, location details certainly doesn't detract from the article. If I was reading an article about a significant event anywhere, I would want to know where. Maurreen 16:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Rebroad, please stop the vandalism of this article. You inserted this morning that it was a "terrorist/freedom fighter" attack. This article is returned as the first item on a Google search for "September 11, 2001 attacks": see [4] You make Wikipedia look stupid with edits like that. I could understand the strong feelings if this was some kind of borderline incident, but it was an anonymous attack intended to kill thousands of non-combatants (using other civilians are weapons!) in order to spread fear throughout America and many other parts of the world. It was the Platonic form of terrorism. Slim 13:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

(Copied from above)

On the contrary. I think you make Wikipedia look biased by your inclusion of the word "terrorist". --Rebroad 14:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, why do you say it was "anonymous" please? --Rebroad 14:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I wrote that the attacks were anonymous, I meant that they weren't claimed. Slim 15:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the archives of the talk pages, of which there are ten, only the first, oldest archive includes the word terrorist, so based upon the article name itself, it was decided long ago to drop the use of the word terrorist.
Reputable news mediea, that try to remain non-biases, avoid use of the words "terrorist" or "freedom fighter". Reuters for example.
The addition of the word terrorist, doesn't present the user with any addition facts. In the absense of the word, the reader can still make their own opinion of what to label them.
Ask yourself this: Why is it that an overwhelming majority of the people who want to include the word "terrorist" are American? In order to get a fair vote, we need proportional, global representation on this issue.

--Rebroad 14:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You've just inserted "freedom fighter attack" again. This is vandalism and if it continues someone will report you for it.

This terrorism/freedom fighter debate is being conducted at the level teenagers talk about it, or even lower. I take your point, Rebroad, about the word "terrorist" not adding to the meaning of the overall article, but this is only because, once a person has read it, or for anyone who already knows what the 9/11 attacks were (which is everyone in the world), the addition of the word "terrorist" only confirms what they already know. But looking at that sentence in isolation: "The attacks of blah blah were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks against the blah . . . ," the word "terrorist" certainly does add information. It tells you the attacks did not take place between two warring parties with a declaration of war and rules of engagement. It tells you that civilians were almost certainly the targets. It tells you the acts were illegal, and so on. That is, the word has denotation, as well as connotation. You are arguing that it merely connotes. You are wrong. It does both.

And please don't move my text around on this page. If you want to copy something, fine, but don't move it and don't delete it. Slim 15:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

- Slim, nice article, although I found the connotation article easier to read and understand. So, I suppose in order to remain NPOV, the question would be: is there an alternative word to "terrorist" that only denotes and doesn't connote? --Rebroad 17:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- BTW, I've never deleted any text in a talk page, only ever moved. --Rebroad 17:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Copied from WOW section. Rebroad, I'm copying these questions and answers because they're a bit scattered at the moment.)

I would like to hear a definition of terrorism that would make September 11 something other than a terrorist attack. If someone has that definition, please post it here. September 11 fulfills all the criteria in my view: (1) There was no declaration of war; (2) there were no rules of engagement; (3) there was no claim of responsibility; (4) the targets were civilians; (5) there was no warning or time given to evacuate the area; (6) the purpose appears to have been the spread of terror among the civilian population. To call the attacks anything other than "terrorist" is an example of what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday". Slim 22:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Slim! Come on! This was a good argument you gave here, but since it wasn't in the debate on "terrorist", I didn't notice it until now. Why are you using 3 sections to discuss one topic?! Your distinction between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" above seem to be one I can subscribe to, and as such I am inclined to agree that "terrorist" is more deserving than "freedom fighter" based upon the apparent lack of avoidance of "collateral damage". --Rebroad 14:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad you see that distinction, Rebroad. Not only did the 9/11 attacks not try to avoid collateral damage. They intended it.

The thing I liked about the United Nations "academic consensus" definition of terrorism (at the top of this page) was that it makes the point that the main target in a terrorist attack is the audience, and that the actual victims are regarded as collateral damage or "representatives" of the target audience. Each member of the audience thinks: "That could easily have been me in that building/at that bus stop/in that nightclub." And that is what spreads the terror, which is the point of the attack. Slim 15:20, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorist" and "freedom fighter", in this instance, is not a fair dichotomy. For an excellent cinematic depiction, please see The Battle of Algiers, which sympathetically portrays the use of terrorism as a tactic within the Algerian resistance to French colonialism. That is, one can be a freedom fighter and still be a terrorist. The use of "terrorist" as an ideological label, e.g. "someone who hates freedom", is a construct of the Bush Administration (approximately). Maureen's policy debate, where once more I suggest this discussion belongs (and where Rebroad's repetition of tired arguments will be less disruptive), is over whether we can in good conscience use "terrorist" in its original, non-ideological (i.e. factual) meaning.

Also, I'd like to appeal for a little charity from Rebroad, who seems to assume that none of the rest of us have ever considered any of the points he is bringing up. This is not true; we've hashed all of these debates out many times before. There are merely other principles at work; since you've been here for less than a week, might I suggest you take a while to learn how it is that Wikipedia operates before you go around sticking your beak in things, and be a little conservative with your edits? Graft 16:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consensus

Rebroad, I'd like to stress Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus. Notice that no one else working on this article agrees with you. Maurreen 16:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC

I've listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Maurreen 16:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And now I have deleted it from RfC. Maurreen 06:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mainland

Sorry if this seems trivial, but somehow mainland sounds odd to me as a way of referring to the continental United States.

Perhaps I think of "mainland" as inapplicable or ambiguous for the U.S. because I'm not certain if mainland includes Alaska.

Regardless, does continental United States sound better?

-- Eric 17:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alaska is certainly still continental. Only Hawaii and the Alaskan islands were attacked in World War Two, not the Alaskan mainland, so Mainland still works. Rmhermen 18:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Contiguous states" or "48 contiguous states" is a common alternative. A bit unwieldy, maybe. Graft 18:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But we mean mainland 49 non-contiguous states here. Rmhermen 19:12, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

We can mean whatever we want - we could just as well say it was the first time the East Coast was attacked since the War of 1812 and be correct. Anyway... not that critical, I think. Graft 19:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You could also say it was the first time there was an attack against the US proper since 1812 (Alaska and Hawaii were did not have statehood during WWII). →Raul654 06:03, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Effects on children?

I hate to bring this up after people have put so much work in over the last few days, but is this section really necessary? The reaction of the American public in general garners barely a paragraph. Meanwhile, the less-than-significant and pretty much uninformed comments of the First Lady on how children might react gets quite a bit more. Why is it necessary to bring up "effects on children"? I don't feel this was a significant aspect of the attacks, any more so than, say, the "effects on the anti-globalization movement" or the "effects on the movie industry", etc. Thoughts? Graft 18:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One or 2 sentences are appropriate - no more. But the first lady of how everybody in the world feels, who made these contributions to Wikipedia (SNIyer1), will not discuss anything with anyone --JimWae 19:04, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Once again, I see no reason to include a discussion of the effects of the attacks on children specifically, since there is no discussion of evidence of resulting trauma, and the commentary of the First Lady does not seem especially relevant or well-informed. Would the author please defend its inclusion? Graft 19:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps consider moving the section to the Laura Bush article. It's more notable and relevant as an event of her time as First Lady than it is in the broad scope of the September 11th events.--Sketchee 10:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the section, I attach what it previously said below. It was started by an editor who is notorious for adding melodrama and emotive sections into articles. The first sentence is unnecessary, the attacks were disturbing to (almost) everyone - why single any one group of people out? Many schools closing early in Washington and NYC may be worth noting somewhere - but how much? Many businesses closed (not particularly surprising in southern Manhattan). Why single out schools? A short Laura Bush comment is not particularly relevant here either. Or in short - why single out children? As I say, it was added by an editor who prefers melodrama and emotion over encyclopaedic articles. jguk 22:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At least it is better written than the garbage she will re-insert again in a short while. I has some relevance here & was on the news for a few days. It does have some relevance beyond Lauara Bush.

I like the "effects on children" section. It kinds of humanizes the article, and I also find it interesting that, as the article implies but does not state, every school child in America got such a letter. The effects on children news angle got a lot of play after 9/11. And the section is referenced, which mean readers can check out the letters for themselves. Slim 23:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Effects on children

The attacks were disturbing to children, particularly as the images were repeatedly replayed on television. Many schools closed early, especially those with children whose parents worked in Washington, D.C. and NYC. The following day, after consulting with many experts, the first lady, Laura Bush, herself a former school librarian, commented to parents that it was not good for children to be exposed to the numerous replays of the incidents, and advised parents to turn off their televisions. She also composed open letters which were distributed by state education officials. A "Dear Students" letter went to middle and high school students [5], while elementary school students got one saying, "Dear Children." [6]

Blood Drive

i like many others donated blood after the attacks. how come it isn't mentioned as a response?

But was it even Al-Qaida?

I'm not being facetious here, but there isn't any proof it WAS Al-Qaida who committed the attacks. I'm not being a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, it's just that I require evidence before I believe something someone tells me is true. I saw the "Bin Laden" video, and I can quite clearly see it's not even him. All the "evidence" that has been presented to the world that supports the Bin Laden theory is dubious at best. Nothing I've seen can't be created very easily by anyone with a computer. If this was a court of law, the prosecution would be laughed out of court. I'm not alone in this train of thought, either. Many intelligence experts around the world also know that the name "Al Qaida" was invented by the US government. Heck, even the organisation itself was funded by the CIA, but we already knew that.

Now, I'm not being insensitive. I know it was a terrorist attack, and that the guys who did it were cruel evil people. I thought Wikipedia was more about fact than just rampant, unchecked opinion.

As for this terrorist/freedom fighter thing, they are both. To us, they're terrorists. To the oppressed people they are acting for, they're freedom fighters. The 9/11 attacks WERE terrorist attacks. They were also attacks by freedom fighters on an oppressive regime. The two aren't mutually exclusive, not by a long shot. The world isn't black and white.

If you're not a conspiracy theorist, why did you insert the following? "In reality an [sic] US Fighter shot down the plane and killed all onboard." Please don't vandalize the article; it has been nominated for featured-article status, and a lot of people have clearly put a great deal of work into it. Blue 12:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of terrorist and their implications

Slim, I noticed you described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Well, according to you, most military action by the US army is terrorist in nature. If we go by what you say (which I agree with), then we have to label most US military action accordingly.

You can't have your cake and eat it - either killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is terrorism or it isn't. (Posted by 82.35.107.44)

Hi Anon, I'm not sure where I've described what constitutes a terrorist attack. Can you be more specific? Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean this one: "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. [1] (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html) "Academic Consensus Definition":

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

The U.S. government isn't a clandestine or semi-clandestine individual, group or state actor; and it doesn't choose as direct targets of violence people who are not its main targets. Slim 03:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true - the CIA is a clandestine state actor, and has been engaged in actions targetting people who are not its main targets, e.g. Nicaraguan peasants, et alia. Graft 05:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, Graft. Also, as SNIyer1 has re-inserted the "effects on children" section, I've edited it to include the links, which were not added back in. Slim 17:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

CJS102793

I slightly edited this page to correct a simple possible error. The article originally stated that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 A.M. local time. In a 9/11 timeline that I read, it stated that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 A.M. local time. There has been some discrepancy between the times that Flight 93 crashed. Originnally the time was 10:03 A.M. local time, but since then the military has determined that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 A.M. For more info, you may go to http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/dayof911.html

Hi. I reverted your edit, using the arguments provided in the 9/11 Commission Report (chapter 1, end note 168). --Plek 14:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the note I was referring to:

168. Ibid., pp. 23–27.We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was “10:06:05±5 (EDT).”Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, “Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack,” spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR,CVR,ATC,radar,and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93’s impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study’s principal authors now concedes that “seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,“Re:UA Flight 93,”July 7,2004;see also Won-Young Kim,“Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001,” July 5, 2004.

I edited this page again to show that United Flight 93 crashed at 10:06:05 A.M. I will quote from the billstclair.com timeline I showed earlier:

"...Acording to the U.S. government, flight 93 crashes at 10:03. The cockpit voice recorder tape was recorded on a 30 minute reel, which means as new tape was recorded, old tape was erased. The government has let relatives listen to this tape, which runs for 31 minutes. So it sounds like the recording ends a minute before the official crash time. However, a seismic study autorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concludes the plane crashed at 10:06:05. The discrepancy is so puzzling, the Philedelphia Daily News has an article on the issue, called "Three Minute Discrepancy in Tape". It notes that leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 A.M., give or take a couple of seconds, and government officials won't explain why they say the plane crashed at 10:03."

Please stop reinserting data that has already been positively refuted. One of those "leading seismologists" your excerpt refers to is Dr. Won-Young Kim of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. He is the primary author of the Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack study (pdf). That's the same Dr. Kim who, in his email to the 9/11 Commission (referred to in the 9/11 Report end note 168), concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." The raw data in question from the report:

Kim, Won-Young & Baum,Gerald R. (2001), Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack (pg. 10), Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey

Now, if you can cite another qualified geologist that can refute Dr. Kim's claim that says this data is "not definitive", please do so. Thanks. --Plek 22:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plek, Plesase stop reverting my edits. I have to keep going back and putting it to the right time stats for United flight 93. Besides, how do you know the 9/11 commision report is right? CJS102793 19:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plek adequately justified the reasons for his/her reversion. If you're going to continue to insist on having 10:06 time instead of 10:03, you must respond to her critique. Graft 00:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also