Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about September 11 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

(New comments go on the bottom of the page.)

Old talk archived at Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive

Can anyone think of deadlier terrorist attacks? I have trouble imagining one. Wars, battles, and government-driven massacres have killed more people in one day, but nothing that could be reasonably described as a terrorist incident. Correct? --The Cunctator

I think that it may go to the definition of "terrorist", which is notoriously problematic. Are government-driven massacres terrorist attacks? I'm inclined to say that they are, since a major purpose is to instill fear in the remaining population; "state terrorism" is not an oxymoron to me. Others will disagree, of course. So in any case, in order to be impartial on the state terrorism issue, we would have to say "deadliest non-state terrorist incident".

I made the change when I did specifically because I realised that I no longer saw US news media describing the attack as the worst ever, only as the worst in the US. Perhaps they were simply being cautious, but should we not be as cautious? Ultimately, I think that the burden of proof rests on those making the claim, and I didn't see any attempt to justify it on the talk page; if I had, I'd have added to that discussion first. But I may have missed something, so let me know.

— Toby 01:55 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

Unless you can provide an example of a deadlier terrorist attack, I am reverting it to deadliest in the "world". --rmhermen

I can't imagine why you think the burden of proof lies with me. It would be one thing if most other sources agreed with you. But they don't; outside of right-wing literature, I usually see only phrases like "deadliest terrorist attack in US history" or "deadliest act of terrorism on US soil". It would be one thing if I were saying ‹What most people think that they know isn't necessarily so.›. But I'm not; instead, you're the one that's advocating a stronger statement than the other media are making.

In an attempt to do your research for you, I looked for historical surveys of terrorist incidents with death tolls, as well as for examples of deadlier terrorist incidents. I found nothing useful either way. So perhaps the other news media simply don't know. Well, fine, but we don't know either. We can't just make up information since we suspect that it goes one way rather than the other. Since you are advocating making claims that you don't know to be true, while I am not, I say that you should provide a reference to a comprehensive survey that ranks this attack deadliest before putting such a phrase in. This is nothing more than simple intellectual integrity, on the part of all of us.

— Toby 06:02 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with Bryan Derksen a few comments back that, as great as a lot of it is, much of the material on 9/11 is out of place in an encyclopedia. Which only goes to show why both Britannica and World Book have issued newsy "yearbook" editions along with their standard encyc. sets for years. Look like a WikiYearbook side project is called for. -- JDG Oct. 3, 2002

On the morning of, I remember hearing one of the tv broadcasters saying that the air force had 'taken care of' the final hijacked plane still in the air. does anyone else remember anything like that? Tubby

No, and it's been more-or-less denied ever since, even though it would have been semi-reasonable to do so at that point, and even though it looks like that's what happened (the official conspiracy theory does not explain the 8-mile debris field).

The one vanishing report I do remember from that day, is of a plane going down in/around Colorado. I suspect it's related to the plane that hit the Pentagon, which is supposed to have been off radar until reappearing over DC.--Kwantus.

We may want to fix edit by 211.28.96.8 (15:23 Nov 9, 2002 September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack). Comments?

"Some people claim that it was the deadliest terrorist attack in the world."

Can somebody point me to a deadlier terrorist attack that ever took place? --mav

depends on your definition of terrorism im sure...Vera Cruz

Exactly. And on what you consider a single attack. And on whether you consider indirect deaths as counting. Perhaps "many people" would be more acceptable? -Martin

Based on our own definition at terrorism. --mav

I'll go check out our definition, but for a discussion of deadlier attacks, Noam Chomsky, for example, argues that the attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant had a far greater death toll in total, so it depends on your definition of terrorism and how you count the deaths. (3 edit conflicts so far.) DanKeshet

"Terrorism refers to the systemic or calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, to instill fear in an audience for purposes of obtaining political goals"

The holocaust would do then. Note that terrorism has an entire section on "Problems with the definition"... -Martin

Using this definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, was the greatest terrorist attacks (calculated use of violence against the civilian population, to instill fear in an audience of obtaining political goals) 62.212.110.113 10:29 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Make it something like: "Many people claim that it was the deadliest terrorist attack in history. But this view varies based on how a terrorist attack is defined." and I'll be happy. --mav

It was the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil,

Could this also depend on definition? How big were some of the masacres of Native Americans? http://iss.k12.nc.us/schools/nms/nativeacleansing.htm talks about 4000 deaths in 'removal' from land.

The biggest argument against this is that this removal took place through and by many, many separate acts. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:40 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

But that wasn't terrorism. If anything that was either a war or genocide. --mav

More importantly, it wasn't on US soil: the United States not having been formed at that time....-Martin

It fits the above definition of terrorism, but I concede that the US wasn't formed. However, I have could "US soil" be taken to mean soil that is now part of the US? I have heard people say "the Romans once ocupied British soil".

Include section (linking to separate article) on philatelic history of September 11, 2001 (stamps commemorating the events, pictorial cancellations, &c.)? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:40 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

My bad... Need sleep :)

But shouldn't the search for "nine eleven" find it? Is it because of the capitalization? What can be done? Zocky 11:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

expletive deleted. See Wikipedia:Common words, searching for which is not possible - nine is on the list Martin

I do not understand how anyone can state this was "among the deadliest single events of asymmetric warfare in history". What about almost any colonization? The foreign power invades with more powerful technology or in the case of North America, non-native germs, and slaughters the native race. Far more asymetric are the more recent wars launched by the US against Iraq (through 1990s and now in 2003), Central America, Africa (destroying the medicine factory in Sudan, and causing the death of millions), etc etc. Wake up, there were _only_ 3000 people killed. It's terrible but happens daily around the world. The author should have said, "among the deadliest single events of asymmetric warfare in AMERICAN history". -evg -

for a definition of asymmetric warfare, see that entry. The colonisation of america wasn't asymmetric by the modern definition, though many events in it would probably qualify as genocide. Also, the entry says single events, which distinguishes 9/11 from protracted wars and battles. Given both those qualifiers, I think that's a balanced intro...

I'm new here, but had a brief and minor comment on the paragraph at the end about the use of the term "nine eleven". Most other major disasters are named for their location -- Hiroshima, Waterloo, etc. I think the adoption of "nine eleven" is a simple consequence of the fact that the act took place in multiple locations, so there was no simple geographical shorthand for the enormity of it. Although the worst damage was in New York, calling it the "WTC disaster" doesn't begin to address everything that happened that day. Catherine

Good point, Catherine.

Btw, there is a discussion at m:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties on the movement of pages to the sep11.wiki site from this one. Martin

The attacks on September 11 were not strictly speaking terrorism, for these reasons:

they were not focused strictly on civilian targets, but included the Pentagon and corporations and markets that vend US debt that fund the US military - by the same definitions that have always been used in war, these are military targets, albeit in the WTC's case there was also a lot of collateral damage
their primary impact was the physical destruction of infrastructure actually useful in war, that being, the command and financing infrastructure of the USA. if not for various precautions in offsite backup, they could have done serious damage to the US economy - thus this was a serious military attack not a fear-generating exercise
even with these precautions and rapid reactions on the part of traders and authorities, the overall impact was estimated at close to US$1T over the next month, and could be said to be much higher if we include present slow growth rates, economic friction introduced by 'national security' measures, and costs of new wars, not to mention risks of diplomatic alienation over same
the objective of the attacks, if Al Qaeda was indeed behind them (which is an assertion never proven by any judicial process, and we should note that), was to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia. This is certainly a military objective and a very clear and focused one.
they were coordinated so effectively as to demonstrate true military capacity.

I submit that this is exactly what is meant by asymmetric warfare, and not what is usually meant by terrorism. Thus the article title could reasonably be 'September 11, 2001, hijackings' or 'September 11, 2001, attack on the USA' but 'terrorist attack' is just biased. History will remember this as the first successful hit of a large scale war fought over normal military objectives and with normal military targets, not an isolated incident involving mostly civilians. Some even say that the Pentagon workers were 'civilians' since they did not carry weapons. This kind of nonsense absolutely boggles the mind. Nor, for the same reasons, was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole a 'terrorist' attack.

The Cole attack was not terrorism but the killing of nearly 3,000 civilians can be nothing other than terrorism. It is very silly to suggest that those people were valid military targets. I thought you were banned? --mav

The Pentagon (and not the WTC) would (certainly) have been a valid military target, but the method of attack was a patent atrocity and plainly illegal. --Daniel C. Boyer

Why not my new definition? -- Taku 03:54 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

For one it was misspelled... mav made it a little clearer. Thanks mav! -- Goatasaur

No problem - is everybody happy now? --mav

"The WTC Towers were constructed almost entirely from steel coated in asbestos, and the attacks released dense clouds of dust into the air of Manhattan. Death usually follows asbestos inhalation only after fifteen years or more - so is possible that other victims of the attacks may die over the decades to come."
I remember either the TV or newspaper specifically saying at the time that the WTC towers didn't contain asbestos, which account is incorrect?

Both! _New York Times_ and/or public-broadcasting coverage in first few weeks clarified that the design called for lots of asbestos, and that this was significant but not complete in construction of the tower that was begun first. The second followed a revised design thru-out, and had at most a very small fraction of the asbestos that the first did. Neither had as much as originally planned. Jerzy 08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am quite sure that naming this article took a great deal of debate and deliberation, however shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks"? They may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. Kingturtle 01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Text moved from the Village pump

RE: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack....shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks"? The attacks may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. Kingturtle 01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Apparently so! Googling reveals that 20,000 "September 11 Attack" pages and 200,000 "September 11 Attacks" pages. 14,000 "9 11 Attack" and 60,000 "9 11 Attacks." Time to move page? --Menchi 06:46 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I'd suggest being conservative here - there are quite a few pages, and they're linked from all over the place, so a change of name will actually entail a fair bit of work. But if you do move, consider whether "terrorist" and "attack" need capitals... Martin

End of moved text

"September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" looks like a better title to me -- sannse 08:33 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've changed it to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks for the above mentioned reasons. Kingturtle 22:15 17 May 2003 (UTC)

But now I realize the seriousness of this change. It might be too overwhelming to change all the associated pages. I think I better changing them all now. It is probably best for me to change them back to the original name, no? Kingturtle 22:25 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Aside from which, the whole matter strikes me as being woefully pedantric. Fortunately, this whole matter seems to have ended on the grounds of difficulty.Arno 04:01 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The insurance company which insured the WTC didn't think so. They tried to declare it one attack so they only had to pay one settlement while the tower owner declared it two attacks and wanted double the money. It went to court -don't know what happened, though. Rmhermen 12:27 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, but we're not an insurance company! Arno 07:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

User:Rmhermen remove every links or information about 6wtc and 7wtc destruction events. (6wtc was partially destroyed by an explosion at 8;04am (I give a link to a short movie in gif) and a link on plane photography that explain the thing. 62.212.110.113 17:49 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone else comment on this? My initial thoughts were that this CIA office business was pure conspiracy theory, but there is that NY Times link that 62 refers to. Unfortunately it is rather vague. Arno 07:58 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

User:62.212.110.113 is pushing a conspiracy theory wherein only a couple buildings were destroyed by the attacking planes and the others were bombed from within possibly by the CIA or other US forces. Also having an office in a 47 story office building hardly makes that entire building a CIA building. Rmhermen 17:01 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

User:Skeptical Some disinformation or misinformation may have crept into the detailed and well articulated articles relating to the terrorist attack(s). I see little consideration in these discussions regarding the possibility of disinformation, with the notable exception of the French site linked to on the Pentagon-Flight 77 page. July 8, 2003, 3:15 PM Chicago time.

Is there a reason for the capitalisation in the current title of this page ("September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack")? Is this a proper name, by which it is widely known? Or should it be at September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, or indeed September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Do all the separate events count as a single attack, or as several? Yes, I know moving the page would require lots of redirects to be changed, but I don't mind doing that. -- Oliver P. 08:49 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, User:Kingturtle questioned the plurality and attempted to move, but didn't go thru with it once he found out the numerous re-Wikification required. --Menchi 08:54 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I'll move the page to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks if I hear no objections. I'll leave it a week, just to give people plenty of time to respond, because I don't fancy doing all those changes if they're going to have to be changed back again later. :) -- Oliver P. 10:41 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No objection. I'll try to help a little with the wiki-work. Tannin

Capitalization

Should we cap?

No cap: because it's not a proper noun, nor is it established
Cap: First World War-like? (but world war isn't used here literally anyway, but like a given name)

--Menchi 11:26 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: Other weapons used on at least one flight included bombs and air spray.

I am not aware that any other weapons were confirmed. I think I remember that they might have threatened to have a bomb. I am not sure. And what is "air spray"? Rmhermen 16:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Phone calls from both Flight 93 and Flight 11 made references to bombs being being displayed , probably to scare people into submission. It is possible that the one on Flight 93 was a phony. Also, according to phone calls from Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong, the hijackers on Flight 11 used some kind of air spray to discourage passengers from entering the first-class area where they were. See the Flight 11 article. Arno 06:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be plural "Attacks"? --Jiang 23:19, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User:Kingturtle and User:Dante Alighieri said they were gonna change (separately). I don't know what happened. Too many already singular links I guess. --Menchi 23:21, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and move? --Jiang

You could, but even though I don't know what happened with Dante Alighieri (I believe he was the second guy), I know that Kingturtle started to change and realized the multitude of the 911 linking web (in the hundreds), so gave up. If you still want to do it, give it a try, and if you need help, try the Pump. I'll tell you now that many people won't bother to help you! (Including me, sorry, I'm not really interested in 911 enough to fix it. How selfcentric of me). The title could use an improvement, but we may not have the manpower to make that improvement. --Menchi 23:56, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Although, I wonder, wouldn't just a simple tweak of the redirects (can't be more than a dozen) do it? But I don't know what happened technically. --Menchi 00:00, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think I can take care of the redirects. I won't change the wrong links though. I think we can live with those redirecting. This article and related subjects needs a lot of cleaning up (bad formatting, etc). --Jiang 00:05, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

done

We need to rename/merge (some of them dont seen too well written) all these subpages. How should they be renamed? September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/World economic effects to World economic effects of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks seems a bit lengthy.

--Jiang 08:43, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[1] Wasn't this person released later than January 2002? Evil saltine 18:41, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I guess that depends on the definition of "hospital". The article says that she was tranfered to "Rusk Rehabilitation Center" sometime before April. It then goes on to call that facility a hospital. But USA Today and the Today Show ran stories on Jan. 18 about the last survivor being released from the hospital (probably others but that is what I found online). Rmhermen 19:31, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

911 name

I'd like to put something in the article about how 911 is the emergency services phone number in the USA, since this is a reason people refer to the attacks as 9/11 instead of September 11, but I can't think of a graceful way to do it.

Whatever you do along these lines, i urge you be sure to acknowledge that their oral versions provide more distinction than the silent slash would suggest. I think that before 9/11 occurred, pronouncing "911" as "nine one one" was nearly universal while pronouncing "9/11" that way was a bizarre affectation if it occurred. Even tho the coincidence is undeniably striking, many of us don't pronounce (let along write) them the same, and may even comment when others blur the distinction. Jerzy 08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see no mention here of the plane that went down in rural Pennsylvania the same day. Is this due to oversight or otherwise? I myself do not know much more than that it happened and so do not want to make the changes myself. -- zandperl 05:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's there. Look at the second paragraph of Overview. -- VV 05:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I tried to update the casualty numbers but there may be problem. The new number for the World Trade Center is 2752 to which we add the 10 hijackers which I think they do not count, so 2762. Then we subtract the 157 casualties on the airplanes which hit the Towers because we list them separately, so a total of 2605 who died on the ground at the WTC. However the article used to list the number as 2650, and the new number is supposed to be 40 less than the old which would give 2610. I think the 2605 is probably correct. Rmhermen 14:42, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

After the U.S. attack removed the Taliban from power in many parts of Afghanistan, a videotape was discovered abandoned in Kabul, the Afghan capital, which showed bin Laden discussing the attacks in language that seems to show he intended to indicate his foreknowledge.

There must be a better way to right this sentence. If I could come up with it myself I would have already changed it. Any ideas? Rmhermen 00:04, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Separate it into two sentences. The first clause is only remotely connected to the rest of it. --Jiang 02:49, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New section

I made a new section. It describes about how the attack was being planned and the movements of the hijacker pilots, the "brawny men", and the financiers back in Europe and the UAE. WhisperToMe 09:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed this section from the page. It is certainly not NPOV and I wonder if it is even necessary.

"Columnist for The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, also attempts to deceive the American public, "Their terrorism is not aimed at reversing any specific US policy. Indeed, they made no demands." The demands that America stop specific foreign polices in the Middle East prove Friedman is lying."

Any comments? Rmhermen 22:43, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that we redirect people to a sub-page on September 11 responsibilty that is shorter than the responsibility section on the main page! Should they be merged to eliminate out of synch editing or should the main page be summarized (which I would prefer)? Rmhermen 15:36, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

"There were early plans to have 20 hijackers, but the final list always did consist of 19 hijackers." Where do claims like this come from? Robert Müller made it quite clear there was zero evidence.[2] Not surprising given that at least nine of The Nineteen were still alive on 9-12.[3] Was he lying, undercutting his case, in order to pitch the 1984 state? Or is "the final list..." stuff some of the ravings and delusions extracted by Mr Kilovolt and Mme Thumbscrew?

OK , a few replies. The Mueller interview referred to in 2 was dated April 2002. The revelations involving the hijackers came well after this date.

As for claims that some of the hijackers being alive, well, I suppose that some of them could have been flung clear of the explosion when those planes hit the WTC, and survived their 70-80+ floor fall by landing on a a large pile of mattresses in a truck that happened to be driving by when the attack took place. Alternately, I suppose the UFO that allegedly appeared at the World Trade Centre after the attacks could have dived in and saved them. Perhaps the owner of the Devil's face pulled a few Satanic strings and resurrected them. But you know what? I don't think any of that happened. In the words of Charles Dickens, the hijackers are as dead as doornails. Cremated doornails at that.

Ditto with the Flight 77 "survivors" and the Flight 93 "survivors". The references in the welfarestate site are given, but I don't think that their owners checked them out very thoroughly, or sought any updates.

If you must cite this kind of thing, then I suggest that you do so on the September 11 Rumours and misinformation page. Arno 03:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First i like to express my sorrow for the loss of life during this attack on the people of the united states. Secondly i sincerely think that a lot of people don't believe the official documented history of this event. Like after pearl harbour the american people got involved in an international struggle following the attack on americans. Take this into consideration: If the media would have announced the perpetrator to be from switserland probably the us airforce would have retaliated against the swiss cities and blowing up terrorists in caves in the alps.The media is a powerfull tool in shaping peoples opinion. It is not to late to bring the perpetrators to justice and to correct the course of action taken after 911. All it takes is some investigation and a suspicious mind to find the truth. I know because i did just that. The united states can be a powerfull force in the world to put things right only if the people want it. The us armed forces is the most powerfull force in the world today. If you compare the armed forces to a gun you have to ask: who is pulling the trigger and where is the barrel pointing at?

2wtccrash.JPG

File:2wtccrash.JPG
United Airlines Flight 175, moments before crashing into The South tower of the World Trade Center

Do we have permission to use this photo? There isn't even any attribution so we could not even begin to pretend it is 'fair use'. --mav 05:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It came from the Chinese Wikipedia. I guess I should have put a note of attribution in the first place X_X WhisperToMe 03:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anthere said that the person who uploaded it on the original French Wikipedia never provided a desc, so out it goes... WhisperToMe 18:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

the term terrorist is POV

Yes, the events of September 11, 2001 were henious and caused great pain and hardship. Nevertheless, the term terrorist is POV. The definition changes through time, and can be debated. President Reagan said it best: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." He said this when defending the actions of people he supported who were accused of being terrorists. Terrible acts of this kind that you support, you can call freedom fighting. The word terrorist can only exist with a POV.

I realize it is difficult to change all the related pages, but they should really all be renamed September 11, 2001 attacks.

P.S. No, I do not think the attackers were freedom fighters. But I don't think they were terrorists either. Terrorist is a label placed. Kingturtle 01:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what what would you call the ,er, attackers? And , also, what would your definition of the word terrorist be? Arno

This is bizarre--I've never actually heard anyone (outside Wikipedia) argue that they weren't terrorists. Purposely killing civilians on a large scale is a fairly canonical example of terrorism. I've heard people claim that the terrorism was justified, but never that it wasn't terrorism at all. --Delirium 20:01, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do we want to change Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Terrorist bombing of Dresden in World War II? The Fellowship of the Troll 22:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Page has a formatting problem. At least with Mozilla browser, if the browser window is not wide enough the table of contents is on top of the image.

Moving pages

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You may not move this page w/o moving the associated talk page and fixing the many double redirects linking to the new article. Why singular, not plural? The phrase "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" is the overwhelming convention used. Please make your case before moving and move it properly if you do, or it will be moved back again. --Jia ng 23:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See above. "Terrorist" has taken on an inherently negative meaning, just like the word "murder". It is not a simple technical term. If we were to talk about "Israeli terrorism" when Israel bombs civilian centres in the occupied territories, people would object too. So please move it back. --Wik 14:52, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why that's a problem. Murdering an office-building full of civilians is a canonical example of terrorism. The fact that that has inherently negative connotations is hardly surprising, as most people consider killing civilian inhabitants of an office building an inherently bad thing. Are you going to argue that we can't say Charles Manson had anything to do with murder now, because that would be characterizing him in an inherently negative way? Should we neutrally say that he caused the lives of some people to end? --Delirium 19:58, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We can't pass off moral judgments as fact, even if they are held by "most people". Some people do justify those attacks, so we can't use language that implies condemnation. Those who justify it don't call it terrorism. If this article is not moved, anyone might as well describe Israeli or U.S. military actions as (state) terrorism. Remember the U.S. killed some 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan alone, and an additional 10,000 in Iraq. --Wik 20:56, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

So we can't call Charles Manson a murderer either, because that implies condemnation? I don't see the difference. In this case, it's held by nearly all people. Even Iran calls it "terrorism" (they imply the US brought it on itself, but still use the term "terrorism"). "State terrorism", by contrast, is far more controversial. --Delirium 21:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We are to report facts, not make moral judgments. Why call Charles Manson a murderer and not George W. Bush, who is responsible for many more killings? We should only report factually who killed whom, and let the readers make their own moral judgment. --Wik 22:17, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

What do those who disagree with the label "terrorist" call these attacks then? I don't see how these attacks don't meet our definition of terrorism - "calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against the civilian population, usually for the purpose of obtaining political or religious goals." --Jia ng 21:46, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Simply "attacks". The title "September 11, 2001 Attacks" is absolutely sufficient and unambiguous. I think "our" definition of terrorism is incomplete, missing the inherent negativism. The term is not used in this merely technical sense; the actual "terrorists" rarely see themselves as "terrorists". --Wik 22:17, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera uses "terrorist" [4]. Can you show me links of how the Arab/leftist media refers to these attacks? Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" and terror: "1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT 3 : REIGN OF TERROR 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>" What's wrong with this definition? --Jia ng 23:03, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, many don't use the word "terrorist". Just do a Google search for "September 11 attacks". What's wrong with the definition is that it misses the fact that people only call those actions terrorism that they want to condemn and not those that they support. I wouldn't mind if we were to use your definition consistently, but I have a feeling you may be the first to protest when Israeli or U.S. actions were to be described as terrorist. --Wik 23:39, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sure many people don't use the word "terrorist", but more people do. I would like us to use a term commonly used elsewhere. Proof that the other name is common must be given.

Whenever a state's action is deemed 'terrorist', we should acknowledge the claim that it is state terrorism. I find it only derogatory for states to be "terrorist" when they have armed forces at their disposal, removing the necessity to attack civilian targets to make their voice heard. Calling an organization "terrorist" only has negative connotations in that attacking and frightening civilians is wrong, not because the word is obscene or innaccurate. --Jia ng 01:41, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, many do use the word terrorist.

The events of Sep 11 were terrorist by definition (as pointed out above), and I see no need to remove the word on the grounds that are, at best, pedantric. It's like what Delirium said - where do we stop if this starts? What would be call the acts of Charles Manson, or a peodophile, or anyone else involved in a major crime? It's a particularly ridiculous form of censorship, and we can do without that here. Arno 04:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We should call things by factual NPOV terms. The Britannica also has its article at "September 11 attacks". The word "Terrorist", even if it were NPOV, would be unnecessary in the title. --Wik

It doesn't matter if the title has unnecessary words. It's not up to us to coin the name of these attacks. We go by what's most common. --Jia ng 22:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, there is no proper name for it. There are endless possible permutations and not one that stands out, so we can choose a concise and NPOV term, and "terrorist" is both unnecessary and POV. --Wik 22:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

There are over 100 definitions of "terrorist", and this attack includes all of them. Include "Terrorist". Tempshill 22:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the problem to do with inconsistant use of the term? Do we want to rename the Allied Carpet bombing articles (like the Dresden Bombing pages) terrorist bombings? After all, they were deliberate attacks on civilian centers - the problem is that if we apply the word 'terrorist' to one group of people, even if everyone agrees, we are implicitly saying that attacks which do not have the word terrorist in the them are not, or are somehow on a different moral level. Better to avoid unecessary and inherently POV language across the board than have to fight the battle of someone picking every attack on a group of civilians and adding the word terrorist to the title. The Fellowship of the Troll 01:09, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Speaking objectively, the September 11 attacks fulfilled every definition of a "terrorist" attack. The word is emotionally loaded, yes, but so what? They were, objectively, terrorist attacks, and they are so called by nearly all our readers. I don't agree that it's extraneous and unnecessary. If your fear is that we will have a Wikipedia-wide move-war over adding "terrorist" to attacks of some sort whose terrorism is disputed: That war can be fought over those articles, and, with time, it will be fought, whether or not we label this one a "terrorist" attack. If any incident qualifies to be called a terrorist attack, it's this one. Tempshill 01:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It fulfills every technical definition, but so does Dresden, yet calling the latter terrorism will never go through, because the term has an inherent negative implication and for that reason alone many people will not want to associate it with what they consider part of a fight for a good cause (against the Nazis). But this is a subjective POV, and people who consider the fight against the U.S. a good cause should have the same right to reject this disparaging term. --Wik 02:19, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

This is doublespeak. Your logic is flawed. By your argument, we should also go through and get rid of the term "massacre" everywhere it is used in Wikipedia, because it is disparaging. I don't care whether it is disparaging -- it is accurate, and so is, without dispute, the use of "terrorist" in this case. "People who consider the fight against the U.S. a good cause" don't have the "right" to reject a term that they consider disparaging if the use of it is accurate. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well then other people don't have this right either. So, "Terrorist Bombing of Dresden" will be OK with you? If not, it is you who's doing the doublespeak. And yes, "massacre" should be avoided too, except when it's part of a firmly established name for an event (e.g. Amritsar Massacre); history hasn't settled yet on a similarly fixed name for 9/11, so we can't use the title "September 11 Massacre", just as we can't use "September 11 Terrorist Attacks" - both are POV. --Wik 15:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? RickK 04:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The media doesn't capitalize. I don't see why should we. --Jia ng

Perhaps there should also be a picture of the twin towers before 9/11? At the moment all the pictures are of the aftermath of the attacks. It would emphasise the scale of destruction in a very visual way. Especially useful for those of us who aren't American and so don't auctomatically know what they looked like. Fabiform 18:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could you discuss the new title here instead of making all these moves ? PomPom

I was just editing the page to prevent further moves...

Again, a move is not appropriate unless you fix those gazillion double redirects. Please do not move until consensus emerges on this page to change the status quo. --Jia ng 22:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have already fixed most of them. --Wik 22:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK, Wik can be an annoying bugger sometimes, but this time he is right. Tannin 22:57, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Even if he is right, he should refrain from moving pages until he has convinced others that he is right.--Jia ng 23:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He isn't right, and Jiang is correct. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" has 7500 more hits on google than "September 11, 2001 attacks": [5], but "September 11, 2001 attacks" (same exact phrase) is used on Encarta and Britannica (Columbia doesn't have an article, but refers to them as "terrorist attack". --Jia ng 05:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Bush administration makes the following claim in their recent 42-page defense of illegal domestic spying: "On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network launched the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history." This doesn't refer to a terrorist attack, so they are saying that Sept 11, 2001 was the deadliest foreign attack in history, but I think that is wrong. Surely there were Revolutionary war attacks that killed more people at one time. The war of 1812 surely had high casualties. I have been searching, but so far have not found any hard numbers. Strange... Randwolfe 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)