Talk:List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks

CSI NY

I hope someone can help clean up my entry, the CSI NY one in 'Television'...it didn't quite work and I'm not sure what happened. I also can't find the official bio for the series and character either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.23.195 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Additions

Although it could be argued that all TV series produced after 9/11 would be expected to include some reference to it at one point or another, I feel including Third Watch and The West Wing in the list is important because both series actually produced episodes directly about 9/11 within only a couple weeks of the events, and Third Watch particularly, due to its concept, was informed by 9/11 very much for the rest of its run. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Family Guy

Hey, I added the episode for Big Man on Hippocampus. On the List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks At television because of 9/11 humor during Fast Money round on Family Feud, when Lois was asked to name a favorite holiday, Stewie answered 9/11. these episodes for Family Guy are an expanle for 9/11 humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewy60 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Classical music

This list needs considerable expansion, to include works by John Adams, Steve Reich, John Corigliano, Terry Riley, Michael Gordon, David Del Tredici, Krzysztof Penderecki, Wojciech Kilar and many others.

(N.B. I'm compiling a personal list of such pieces and will add items along the way, so this note is as much a placeholder for me as anything else.)

86.166.50.224 (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111230004427/http://mounirfatmi.com/2installation/savemanhattan03.html to http://www.mounirfatmi.com/2installation/savemanhattan03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211111110/http://www.mounirfatmi.com/2video/savemanhattan.html to http://www.mounirfatmi.com/2video/savemanhattan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809112139/http://www.petehamill.com/foreverone.html to http://www.petehamill.com/foreverone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402121638/http://www.evergreenreview.com/128/review_us_of_banana.shtml to http://www.evergreenreview.com/128/review_us_of_banana.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402081805/http://citemag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HindCite_Howard_Cite52.pdf to http://citemag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HindCite_Howard_Cite52.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326140036/http://www.prairie.org/events/14662/truth-serum-blues-play-ismail-khalidi-and-bassam-jarbawi to http://www.prairie.org/events/14662/truth-serum-blues-play-ismail-khalidi-and-bassam-jarbawi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918011639/http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6631146.html?industryid=47112 to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6631146.html?industryid=47112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626133749/http://www.analogsf.com/Nebulas03/Spirit.shtml to http://www.analogsf.com/Nebulas03/Spirit.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed

Per WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:IPCV, all items listed in this article should be supplemented by independent sources that establish that the given reference is considered significant in some manner. Additionally, the article itself has been tagged for needing citations long-term.

At some point I'll begin clean-up efforts. DonIago (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have specific parts of the article that you are concerned with? Films, books, and other media tend to be sources on their own and usually dont require additional sources because its overkill.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review the policies I linked. List items explicitly do require sources and bluelinks are not in and of themselves sufficient. DonIago (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well aware of the guidelines, but its not the links that are the sources, it's the works themselves that are the sources. Mentioning that a film references 9/11 is easily verifiable through watching the film so another source saying that it references 9/11 isn't required. Why would it? So if you want to challenge a work that is in this article, please mention which one you think shouldn't be here, otherwise you're just creating a problem that doesn't exist.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that this list lacks anything to establish that these "cultural references" are actually significant in any manner beyond the fact that they occurred; an issue that providing sources is intended to address. I'm not creating a problem, I'm intending to address one that other editors haven't taken on. A mere "mention" of 9/11 should not be grounds for inclusion here in any case; if you'd like, I'm happy to discuss the inclusion criteria instead, and we can talk about WP:IINFO. DonIago (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like the inclusion criteria is sonething that needs looked at. The article is far from perfect and most likely has items that should be looked at. We can agree that there are many films and other media which can immediatly be certified as being directly about 9/11 and dont have just passing references to it. I would stipulate that anything that is a direct reference to 9/11 should be kept in and anything that has just a passing reference should be removed.But tagging everything for references is going to have unintended consequences.JOJ ^Hutton 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim that requiring everything be cited would necessarily be the best option, but it would address any concerns regarding significance not just in the now but also going forward. I'm happy to discuss other options, but I don't feel it should be incumbent on readers to have to look at linked articles to determine whether something really belongs on this list, and I definitely think we need better inclusion criteria than "mentions 9/11 at some point". I hope we can work together to come up with a path forward that will satisfy both of us. DonIago (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if you're so inclined or have the time, you could tag a few questionable inclusions with a "Dubious" tag so they can be looked at with a bit more scrutiny. I'm not too familiar with sone of the non English films so those may we may need to get help with. But Im on board with your inclusion proposal. Sounds perfectly reasonable.JOJ ^Hutton 03:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Saw this via WT:SAL. It seems like determining the inclusion criteria first would help regarding sourcing. If I had to guess at what the operational inclusion criteria has been by the condition of the article, I'd assume that if any media exists that mentions 9/11, that it could be included here regardless of notability, independent verifiability, significance, etc. That's sort of a worst case scenario for "popular culture" type articles/lists. What would make the most sense to me, for the sake of verifiability and avoiding WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be: references in notable works covered by an independent source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That would certainly work for me, and I think it would be the best-case scenario, but I'm open to discussing other options if there are editors who feel that would be too rigid. DonIago (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As there's been no further comment on this for several weeks, I'm beginning a leisurely clean-up effort. For those who may have concerns about this, I'm starting with items that are both redlinked or unlinked and unsourced. That being said, the best thing anyone could do to preserve an item of interest to them would be to provide an appropriate citation as noted above. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Listy of films about 9/11" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Listy of films about 9/11. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Listy of films about 9/11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rescue Me

Rescue Me is a TV show, not a film. It was not deleted, but moved to the correct section of the page. Ckessler (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review your own diff; you clearly were deleting content, and the amount of it is also reflected in the History for the article. DonIago (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)