Talk:September 11 attacks

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories?

A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources.

Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)?

A2: Wikipedia:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Wikipedia. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.[1]

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
February 26, 2004	Featured article review	Demoted
January 10, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 29, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 27, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 19, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 29, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
July 10, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 20, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 19, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 5, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 25, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 23, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
August 30, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 25, 2011	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 24, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 13, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
October 27, 2018	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, September 11, 2023, and September 11, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Aviation: Accidents

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

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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Death: Suicide Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disaster management Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting High‑importance

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

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

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

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

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

New York City Top‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) High‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrorism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance).

Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

Other talk page banners

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

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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 13 times. The weeks in which this happened:

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

Discussions:

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

Section sizes

Section size for September 11 attacks (46 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	21,072	21,072
Background	123	61,937
Al-Qaeda	7,835	21,559
Osama bin Laden	9,077	9,077
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al-Qaeda members	4,647	4,647
Motives	22,260	22,260
Planning	10,400	10,400
Prior intelligence	7,595	7,595
Attacks	3,902	78,066
The four crashes	28,128	28,128
Casualties	32,349	32,349
Damage	10,901	10,901
Rescue efforts	2,786	2,786
Reactions	3,843	66,948
Immediate response	10,302	10,302
Domestic reactions	8,012	18,373
Hate crimes	5,692	5,692
Discrimination and racial profiling	1,978	1,978
Muslim American response	1,697	1,697
Interfaith efforts	994	994
International reactions	19,172	19,172
Military operations	15,258	15,258
Aftermath	88	46,488
Health issues	10,247	10,247
Economic	7,145	7,145
Effects in Afghanistan	8,347	8,347
Cultural influence	4,252	4,252
Government policies towards terrorism	10,017	10,017
Legal proceedings	6,392	6,392
Investigations	21	32,241
FBI	9,430	9,430
CIA	2,196	2,196
Congressional inquiry	6,157	6,157
9/11 Commission	4,325	4,325
National Institute of Standards and Technology	6,080	6,080
Alleged Saudi government role	4,032	4,032
Rebuilding and memorials	32	21,504
Reconstruction	9,508	9,508
Memorials	11,964	11,964
See also	1,292	1,292
References	17	76
Notes	28	28
Citations	31	31
Bibliography	10,567	10,567
Further reading	3,108	3,108
External links	5,040	5,040
Total	348,339	348,339

"Flew" vs "which crashed"

@Беарофчечьня:, I have reverted your change. The version you are changing to makes the sentence more clumsy. It doesn't need to be called out as the first impact, because this is the first impact we're describing in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was good as it was with "The first impact was that of..." because it clarifies the first attack. Also, "flew" is mentioned just two sentences afterward at: "American Airlines Flight 77 flew towards". That is why something different should be written in the first attack and I prefer the former version. Беарофчечьня (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't need to clarify that it was the first attack. It's the first one we're describing, it's right there. Plus "The first impact was that of... is just clumsy English.

If you can convince a consensus of people here that specifying it was the first impact matters, I'd go with:

Ringleader Mohamed Atta flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan at 8:46 am, making it the first plane to impact a building. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we won't reach an agreement here, and that's cool. I guess it's best to let others chime in. Беарофчечьня (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u should change it to smd lil nga 100.12.168.252 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection status

As we approach September and the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, I would like to begin the discussion of protecting this page through the month of September 2024. What I've noticed in recent weeks is a lot of edits that propagate conspiracy theories. Please discuss below this message. Butterscotch5 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't typically enact protection ahead of time. Some years barely anything happens, others we need protection. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a small uptick, but nothing concerning, and we deal with it if we need to. The past few years haven't amounted to much. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hijackers vs terrorists

@epicgenius you reverted my edit which I made as per MOS:TERRORISM. The reason you cited for the revert is that “it is very well documented that al-Qaeda is a terrorist group”. I agree with that, however, according to the MOS even in cases where such a label is widely used by reliable sources it should be used with in-text attribution. aps (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede isn't the place for in-text attribution of that kind, where it would be awkward, wordy and unnecessarily hedged. The lede is a summary, and this isn't a remotely ambiguous event of the kind that the MoS contemplates. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis is an issue of a technical violation, but I am unsure its all that contentious. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that 9/11 (and many other events) was terrorism. And I doubt that anyone would in good faith argue that it wasn’t. However, we don’t use this metric to describe other events (see for example [2]) and using it here makes Wikipedia appear biased since, effectively, editors of individual pages determine what is and isn’t deserving of compliance with MOS:TERRORISM. aps (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a double standard here Omagh bombing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit [3] changed the wording to avoid the awkwardness of in-text attribution.

Regarding the MoS, is there precedent that some events are considered not remotely ambiguous of the kind that the MoS contemplates and as such appropriate to be described with (relatively) loaded terms? aps (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the attribution is in the article itself, see WP:LEDE. The only reason you sometimes see cites in the lede is because people were fighting over the wording constantly, so editors grudgingly included cites there just to make them stop it. The lede itself is supposed to just summarize the cited information contained in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

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

105.245.44.11 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i will add more information

What information? Slatersteven (talk)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article propagates an official lie

At least 6 hijackers were alive afterward. The buildings collapsed due to explosives. Sorgfelt (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all

Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.

But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Wikipedia editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.

I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.

The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.

I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. Moxy🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Removal Discussion: Dancing Israelis

Hi, I am the one who added the paragraph on the "dancing Israelis." I think it is highly relevant and it is indeed a real incident. I also included the two publicly-available screenshots of the FBI report on their arrest:

If anybody disagrees with this paragraph I added or its images, I'd like to make this space available for you ahead of time to present your opinions for discussion as I predict disagreement on the topic. ABC News still has a few articles up on the topic, e.g. [4] You can read the FBI report here: [5] Thanks! DivineReality (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]