Jump to content

Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Article Title

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)

A good idea, and one that will (hopefully) bring this whole pedantric matter to a close. My prediction is that "keep the terrorist word in" side will win handsomely. Arno 09:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Tannin

The Word "Terrorist"

Err .... but I better point out that it is not pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a type of action, it describes a type of judgemet about that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. Tannin
Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I only said it was terrorist by any technical definition that ignores the judgemental content of the word. Otherwise, will you agree to call the Dresden bombings terrorist, or Israeli bombings of civilian areas in Palestine? This would be just as "accurate". --Wik 18:26, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I will agree to have this same debate on each bombing you cite, yes, but not to make a sweeping declaration that nothing (or everything) must be called "terrorist" or "massacre" or "murder" because these words are judgmental. Tempshill 19:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We should be consistent. Either we avoid the term generally or we use it in every case where the technical definition applies. --Wik 20:12, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Encylopedias are not about technical definitions, they are about common usage. Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What does common usage mean, the common usage of the commissars of the corporate media, or the usage of the common man. The view of the one billion of the world's Muslims is more common than those of the 1/4 billion Americans. I am American and I don't consider an attack on a military target like the Pentagon "terrorist". And as far as civilian casualties - Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagaski, the firebombing of Japan, the bombing of Hanoi...are these all terrorist actions as well? -- HectorRodriguez 02:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interlude

Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sheesh - that last suggestion was certainly Canutelike. Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

After Interlude

The arguments for terrorist have all been made to the point where I feel anything I write would be redundant. These were obviously terrorist attacks; as mentioned on Talk:Osama bin Laden, even bin Laden calls them terrorist. The comparison to Dresden, Israel, etc., only serve to underscore this fact, which is to say, seeking to call such things terrorist in no way alters the terrorist nature of other acts, but in fact reinforces it. The argument goes something like: If blowing up a passenger bus in Tel Aviv is an act of terrorism, then isn't the Israeli military's raid on Jenin also because of so-and-so similarities? By analogy, consider (say) an issue in the California recall election. While called by some auto registration fees, others called those fees a car tax. The same argument could be made: How is that not too a tax, just like, say, the income tax? This does not function as an argument for not calling the income tax a tax because tax is "controversial" or "emotive"; rather, it makes it clear that the income tax is a tax, and puts forth a (potentially controversial) argument for extending the term tax to other fees. But it would put forth a POV, the view which accepts this parallel, to have titles such as "Jenin terrorist raid" and "Dresden terrorist bombing", but in no way is POV to call the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks exactly what they were. -- VV 01:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're mistaken on several points. 1) Actually, Bin Laden said this: "They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice." Does this sound as if he accepts this term? When accused of terrorism, he may play along and say something like "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists." But other than in response to such questions he does not see himself as a terrorist. 2) Wrong analogies. No one denies the income tax is a tax. The controversy here only starts when the word is to be applied to things which can be easily argued to be substantially different (such as user fees). But you have not made a case for how Dresden is substantially different from 9/11. Calling it terrorism is POV in both cases. If 9/11 is supposed to be "objectively" terrorism, then Dresden and Jenin must be too. You'd have to make up some arbitrary definition to make it apply to one and not the other. --Wik 01:42, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the cases of Dresden and Jenin, but were civilians intentionally targetted in those cases, like that of 9/11? If so, then I'd be fine with calling it terrorism. Because, there's nothing at all arbitrary about that definition. Again, I challenge you to come up with a definition of terrorism that does not apply to September 11th. I'm talking about a real definition, one that you're going to stand behind, not "well a couple nutcases think it's fine to kill innocent people," because those nutcases aren't going to be reading Wikipedia and even if they did I really don't give a s**t about them. Anthony DiPierro 04:54, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Terrorist should be in the title. As Anthony says 'I challenge you to come up with a definition of terrorism that does not apply to September 11th.' : ChrisG
I challenge you to come up with a definition of "incident in which a number of passenger airliners were hijacked and used as weapons to destroy and seriously damage buildings" that does not apply to September 11th, but I still don't think that needs to be in the title of the article if there's a reason to leave it out. Onebyone 11:41, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not passenger airliners, but planes used as projectiles against military and non-military targets, discounting the idiot who crashed his micro-light into the Whitehouse and think about a small nation who is sending unarmed troups to Irak, Japan. Seriously damage buildings, cruisers, minesweepers, etc. Webhat 05:13, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Uhm, the Wik quote above from U/OBL is in english. He doesn't seem to speak english in any of the Al Jazeera tapes I've seen. Should we not also be cautious about translation issues? For example, are mujahadeen being translated as "soldiers", "warriors", or terrorists? I'm not saying it's one or the other, but that translation issues can play a major role, and we have to work harder than normal to find equivalent terms when tranlating languages, which may have different POV terms than english. Ronabop 08:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Google Hits

"september 11" - 3,940,000 (I think we can safely throw this one out as incidental - 151.204.210.18)
Very much so, the September 11 in this range of articles could mean anything from the terrorist attacks to the birthday of someone's pet budgie, as well as sentences such as "Last September, 11 cars were sold." Arno 06:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Potential titles

"september 11, 2001" - 2,220,000
"september 11, 2002" - 384,000 (for comparison)
"september 4, 2002" - 199,000 (more comparison)
"september 11th" - 1,390,000 (this one too --Wik)
"september 4th" - 121,000 (more comparison)
"events of september 11" - 472,000
"Attack on America" - 316,000
"Attack on America" September 11 - 76,600
"september 11 attacks" - 289,000
"events of september 11, 2001" - 139,000
"september 11 terrorist attacks" - 125,000
"september 11th, attacks" - 67,800
"september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 40,800
"september 11, 2001 attacks" - 30,200
"september 11th, terrorist attacks" - 28,700
"September 11: Attack on America" - 1,760
"september 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 1,100
"september 11th, 2001 attacks" - 1,060

but...Pfortuny 20:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(BTW, what about titles that have 11 September in them.... or shouldn't I ask?) Arno 06:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"11 september" - 1,680,000 (including German results)
"11 september 2001" - 402,000
"11 september 2002" - 83,500
"11 september 2000" - 36,900
"11 september 2001 attacks" - 3,740
"11 september attacks" - 24,300
"11-9 attacks" - 119 (oh... that was neat ^^)

Now the yyyy-mm-dd format (used in East Asia and other countries... I think)

"2001-09-11" - 352,000
"2002-09-11" - 522,000 (what's so special about that date? Maybe just more people on line)
"2000-09-11" - 216,000
"2004-01-24" - 223,000
"2001-09-11 attacks" - 20

Sabbut 14:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I guess I should not have asked. Arno 11:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll on page title

Feel free to change your position at any time based on new arguments.

  • September 11, 2001 attacks
  1. Tannin 09:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 18:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 19:02, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (I would also drop the 2001)
  5. Lou I 19:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. Arwel 20:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. WormRunner 21:19, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  9. Kokiri
  10. Jiang 00:24,18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (other encyclopedias use it, but count this vote and disregard the other provided that terrorist not be removed from the text)
  11. Meelar As long as the word "terrorist" is in the article, we don't need it in the title
  12. ☮ Eclecticology 01:05, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)
  13. mav This whole thread is operating on a hugely misinformed assumption; that NPOV applies to titles. It cannot, nor should it ever. If it did, then titles would have to be very long and near impossible to remember. We have to choose just one term for every title and that is inherently a POV process. The convention we have decided to use in these cases is common usage among English speakers with caveats for ambiguity and unreasonable offensiveness. So if a term happens to have "terrorist" or "massacre" in its most common name, then we use that term as the page title. With that said, it does appear, that, in this case, the word "terrorist" is neither more common, nor needed for disambiguation for this title. On that basis, and on that basis alone, should it be removed. As a matter of fact, this may work for most other cases where "terrorist" is in the title (but not so for "massacre").
    This sounds like grounds for voting for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks! Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    Sorry - no it isn't. It is an argument for following common usage and not having titles longer than they need to be. --mav
  14. Dpbsmith No need for the word "terrorist" to appear in the title. Doesn't make the article any easier to find.
  15. Jade Hamblyn 02:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  16. .·. Optim 02:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) .·.
  17. Flockmeal 04:47, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
  18. The term terrorism is POV. Kingturtle 06:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    That is irrelevant. See my message above. --mav
  19. Should be at the most likely to be searched for term. It's nothing to do with POV. Secretlondon 07:32, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
    Look at google hits. The other term is searched for more often.
  20. Bill 12:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  21. The Fellowship of the Troll 13:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)Searches isn't a problem, we can have as many redirects as we can eat. The term is POV, and the precident of 'this was so terrible that POV doesn't matter here' will cause problems elsewhere if we apply it fairly.
    Those of you claiming the term is POV really should explain that somewhere on the talk page. I can think of no definition of terrorist for which the 9/11 incident does not apply. Starters would be coming up with one. Anthony DiPierro 16:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  22. Toby Bartels 00:25, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) -- This is among the options listed, with the term "terrorist" being the main point of contention. In all, I know of 5 points of contention in the title, and I agree with this version only on 3 or 4 of them.
  23. Lord Emsworth
  24. Jeroenvrp 03:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  25. ChrisO 17:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) The description "terrorist" seems a bit redundant, to be honest - everyone knows what category the attacks fall into, surely?
  26. UtherSRG I'd like to vote below, but mav's argument is most compelling. Thanks mav!
  27. "terrorist" is controversial and unnecessary in the title. The article (or a linked article) should explain the controversy. --Ellmist 03:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  28. Tompagenet 17:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  29. MikeCapone 04:29, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  30. Sabbut 14:19, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  31. Nico 18:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  32. Infrogmation 07:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  33. HectorRodriguez 02:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  34. Martin 20:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) (ohne terrorist)
  35. pir 03:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  36. Richardchilton 07:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  37. RickK 03:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) I'm sure many of you are surprised at my vote, but believe it or not, I have no problem with NPOV. I would object to the removal of the word "terrorist" from the article itself. Another question -- has Tim Starling not proven that HectorRodriguez and Richardchilton are the same person? If so, sock puppet votes should be discarded.
  38. Kpalion 13:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
  1. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) This sets a silly precedent for political correctness, in my view.
  2. PMA 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rmhermen 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  5. —Eloquence 19:10, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (if used consistently for CIA-sponsored terrorism as well)
  6. WhisperToMe 19:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  7. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. Maximus Rex 00:20, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  9. Jiang 00:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (see conditions above)
  10. Dori
  11. VV 00:45, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (I'd be open to dropping the 2001 however)
  12. Ruhrjung 13:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - me too ;)
  13. Binky 07:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC). Attacks is already point of view, may as way go all the way.
  14. Crusadeonilliteracy 12:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  15. Marteau
  16. jengod 06:36, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) It's what Osama would want.
    Hmmm, voting the right way for the wrong reasons....Arno 07:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  17. ChrisG Political correctness gone mad.
    Hear hear!! Arno 23:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  18. Ilyanep Really.
  19. Lirath Q. Pynnor Who doesn't think those were terrorist attacks? Whether American, Israeli, Afghani, Palestinian, Iraqi, or Saudi Arabian in origin -- surely they were still terrorists.
  20. Ryan_Cable 14:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • September 11, 2001
  1. Anthony DiPierro 19:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  2. Webhat 05:03, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Jack 01:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) and I'd like to give a big ol' "Me Too!" out to ADP (I call it "9/11")
  4. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • "Don't Care"
  1. —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:10, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) - I don't think it matters as long as the one that isn't chosen becomes a redirect page to the other.
  2. Moriori 20:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC). I tend to agree, but also support Anthony DiPierro re the word terrorist remaining in the text itself. The key for me is the answer to the following question. "Were the people who carried out the attacks terrorists"?
  3. Martin 20:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note that this vote is solely for the title. I don't think the word terrorist should be taken out of the text itself. If there are credible arguments that the attacks were not terrorism, they can be included. In any case, that is a separate vote. Anthony DiPierro 19:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the poll

I think it is a nice thing to have exceptions in any policy, and this one seems good enough for me. This explains my vote above. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that calls for the term terrorist be applied consistently are politics in a thin disguise. It is fortunate that in this case, specifying "attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks" is sufficient to identify what the article is about, so I think that in the interests of avoiding a spree of people adding "terrorist" to various articles in order to make political points about government-sponsered terrorism we should just do the simple thing. Furthermore, talking about "the" definition of terrorism is disingenuous, since various groups have produced different definitions according to their biases and their aims, to reflect the different things that they mean when they talk about terrorism. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think calling them merely "attacks" dilutes the reality of the situation. Specifying "September 11, 2001" is likewise sufficient to identify what the article is about. As for "the" definition of terrorism, Wikipedia is based on common usage, isn't it? What this event is referred to as should be the only question. Even if it definitively wasn't terrorism, if it's overwhelmingly referred to as such that's the title we should use. We still call it Manifest Destiny, don't we? Anthony DiPierro 20:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is not "overwhelmingly" called terrorism. --Wik 20:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
It is overwhelmingly regarded as a terrorist act. --mav 02:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nor is it "overwhelmingly" called "September 11, 2001 attacks." If you noticed, I didn't vote for either. Anthony DiPierro 20:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No one made that claim. There is no "overwhelmingly" used name, so we should just describe it in a concise and NPOV manner. --Wik 20:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear that neither title is NPOV. And my point about "overwhelmingly" was to defend the statement that definitions are meaningless. Anthony DiPierro 21:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree they would be meaningless if there were an overwhelmingly used name. But there isn't, so they aren't. And I don't see what's not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks". --Wik 21:23, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I still say they're meaningless. But I guess I can't use the Manifest Destiny argument any more. In any case, I find it hard to see a definition of terrorism that doesn't include this event. Do you know of one? And what is not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks" is that it implies that the attacks were not terrorist, especially when you type in "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" and get redirected. Finally, I don't see the problem with using "September 11, 2001." Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The most common definition of "terrorism" implies condemnation, just like "murder" means an unjustified killing and those 9who support killings in certain circumstances won't ever call those killings "murder"; likewise those who support those attacks don't call them "terrorism". So the common definition doesn't include this event for those who support it. As to the other point, while not every "attack" has to be a "terrorist attack", every "terrorist attack" is also an "attack", so the title "September 11, 2001 attacks" does not imply that they were not terrorist. By the same logic, your proposed version "September 11, 2001" would imply that there wasn't even an attack! --Wik 01:12, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the WTC attack was justified? Does anyone on here support this? Should we stop calling murderers murderers because hey somewhere someone thought what they did was OK? As to not implying that it is not terrorist, changing the title from "terrorist attack" to "attack" because some nutball out there thinks that it's fine to intentionally kill innocent victims most certainly implies that it's not terrorist. Implying that it is not an attack does not at all follow from the same logic. You just don't understand my logic. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not a United States "news" channel. Let's try to just be a little objective about this. If we label this page with the word "terrorist" included then all other instances of "terrorist" attacks covered in the WP should also have their names changed, including "terrorist" acts perpetrated by the United States(plenty of those). So why not just keep it simple. By the way someone whose opinion differs from yours is not automatically a "nutball". Its not like the U.S. hasn't done anything to upset the people that attack it. Jade Hamblyn 05:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
All instances of "terrorist" attacks which are indisputably terrorism (intentionally target civilians to create terror for political purposes) should be labeled as such. If you have such an instance, then go ahead, label it terrorism. No, someone whose opinion differs from mine is not automatically a "nutball." But someone who defends the murders which took place on 9/11 is. I don't care how much you upset someone. Killing thousands of innocent civilians is not the answer. Anthony DiPierro 05:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The US government, over and over again, has targeted civilians. Putting aside events like My Lai, which they attribute to people not following orders (although it seems a natural consequence of the operation it was part of Wheeler Walawa), the US government has targeted civilians over and over again - Dresden and other German cities, Hiroshima, Nagaski, the firebombing of Tokyo (and other Japanese cities), the bombing of Hanoi, the attacks on dams to cause floods and famine in Korea and Vietnam and so on and so forth. The idea that the US has never targeted civilians is ludicrous. By the way, the CIA was who brought over the sheikh who plotted the first bombing of the WTC and the CIA with MAK is who trained and armed Al Qaeda to fight in Afghanistan against the communist government with. Please spare us your horror about killing innocent civilians, as there is no government in the world currently which has more blood on it's hands then the USA. -- HectorRodriguez 05:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

9/11/01 Was indeed a terrorist attack. It should be identified as such. Political correctness should not be our goal. Our goal is to be subjective and this is a 'terrorist' attack! Ilyanep 16:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dates

The designation as "9/11" is so universal that I wonder whether the title shouldn't use this term rather than "September 11." Also, the title should distinguish the article from articles about any other events that might have happened on the same day. I don't think "terrorist" helps to do this, but I wonder whether "World Trade Center" shouldn't be in the title. Dpbsmith 02:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The bastards attacked the Pentagon too, so if you mention the WTC, you gotta mention the Pentagon. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Right - the Pentagon is the Jan Brady of September 11 PMA 05:29, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
As for universality... in Spain, where I live, people call the fatidical date "11-S", and few people know what "9/11" means. IMO, "9/11" should be a redirect... or the title of an article about the fraction "nine elevenths". I'll stick with "September 11"... no need to abbreviate it and confuse readers whose main language isn't English. Sabbut 13:18, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)
But this is the English version of the encyclopedia. Why can't we confuse readers whose main language isn't English? Anthony DiPierro 17:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bear in mind that 9/11 is the US date format. Elsewhere, (eg down under) the format is 11/9. September 11 is rather less ambiguous and more universal. BTW, if you mention the Pentagon and the WTC, let's not forget Flight 93. Arno 07:59, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Flight 93 was part of the attack on the Pentagon. Anthony DiPierro 02:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Flight 93 was supposed to strike the Capitol. See the Flight 93 article and September 11 (terrorist) attacks artivle ("Recent statements and revelations"). The terrorists called it the "faculty of law" in their communications. The Pentagon had a different code name. Arno 06:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fine, attack on the Pentagon, WTC, and the Capitol. Just more reason not to use such a title. September 11, 2001 is the only reasonable title right now. Anthony DiPierro 13:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More general discussion

I think we should be thinking about this in a global sense and avoid possibly nationalistic notions of the "universality" of a term to describe this event, as people from different countries refer to it using a multitude of terms. The name of an article referring to this event should just be concise.--Jade Hamblyn 03:52, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Anthony wrote: All instances of "terrorist" attacks which are indisputably terrorism (intentionally target civilians to create terror for political purposes) should be labeled as such. OK. Let's go with that, shall we? Hmmm ... that will give us:

Shall I go on? Tannin

Apparently you don't understand what the word indisputably means. Let's take Hiroshima. The US govt claims that this was targetted as a military base. So using the term terrorist is disputed.

Furthermore, labelling as such doesn't necessarily mean in the title. In the case of 9/11, it was already in the title, and is just as popular in the title as not, so I don't have a problem with it.

I obviously don't feel that "terrorist" has to be in the title. Actually my suggestion, September 11, 2001, which no one has even commented on, doesn't contain the word terrorist in it. Isn't the word "attack" POV? Maybe we should just September 11, 2001 self-defense... Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do not forget please

Shall I go on? Pfortuny 14:55, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

However, probably the only way you could disagree the sep 2001 incident was a terrorist attack would be if you wished you were personally carrying out the next emulation of it. This raises interesting questions regarding the whole NPOV theory. Crusadeonilliteracy


Thankfully, not every word that we agree could legitimately descibe the event needs to be in the title, noone is arguing that it should be Awful, horrific, tragic, terrorist attacks (Sept 11). The Fellowship of the Troll 15:01, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This goes for lots of things, Warsaw Pact is the opposite of Warsaw Treaty. I've never heard of anybody signing a peace pact... but if you ever want to get into a treaty with the Devil... Terror is POV, however terrorists are described in one of the many Geneva pacts. AFAIK freedom fighter/terrorist can stand in a busy street and blow himself up and be considered a soldier in an armed conflict, by international law, if he announces that he is a member of blah army before he starts shooting/exploding at the military target. And ofcourse his leaders have to have informed the enemy that they are at war. Perhaps it should be September 11, 2001 Horiffic acts of War. Webhat 04:59, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
But it is commonly accepted that 9/11 was terrorism. Nobody's saying to rename WWII to Hitler's terrorism tries to 'perfect' the world. In any case, this is getting way too far. Ilyanep 19:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Justification for one pollee's vote

Since I'm in the poll, I should summarise my reasons.

Short version:

  1. The shorter title is at least as common as the longer title.
  2. Shorter titles, when disambiguous, are a Good Thing.
  3. Titles should be restrained in their implicit claims.

Long version:

  1. The attacks were definitely terrorist.
  2. However, calling them terrorist without attribution is POV.
  3. However, mav is right that article standards of POV can't apply to titles.
  4. This is why we fix arbitrary naming conventions, although they are of little help here.
    1. The default naming convention is common usage.
    2. However, common usage in this case can't make the decision.
      1. Someday we may have a fixed, standardised name (like St. Valentine's Day Massacre), but we don't have that now.
      2. While Google indicated a preference, the difference was below any threshold of trusthing Google to report general usage.
    3. We have no specialised naming convention for this situation.
  5. But there are some good naming principles that we can apply.
    1. Shorter names will almost always be used more often than longer names.
    2. NPOV can apply in a lesser sense, in calling for titles to be moderate.
  6. These principles, while not universal, can help us decide to remove "terrorist".

My position is explained more fully on the wikiEN-L thread.

-- Toby Bartels 01:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I voted for September 11, 2001 for most of the same reasons (except I disagree with 2, and 4.2 doesn't apply). We do have a clearly most commonly used and unambiguous title. Anthony DiPierro 06:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist Attacks

The attacks were for sure terrorist attacks. There is no doubt for that! And I hope it will never happen again. But the title "September 11, 2001 attacks" is shorter and better. There is really no need to add the word Terrorist, since everyone knows it is terrorism. Optim 01:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But mention of it being terrorism should not be removed from the text. --Jiang
If it is NPOV, yes ("it is generally accepted in USA and most parts of the world that these attacks were terrorist in nature"). Citing quotes of politicians saying that these attacks were terrorist would be great. (note: I haven't really read the article). Optim 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Calling it terrorist is NPOV. As you said yourself, the attacks were for sure terrorist attacks. There's no serious dispute over whether or not the attacks were terrorist. They were. There's no need to qualify the statement. In and of itself it is a fact. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, if the standard is to exclude 'what everybody knows' the page would just be called "September 11". Marteau
No. in Chile they use this date for another political event. Also, we already have a September 11 article. Optim 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
To extend on this , "September 11" is too vague and could apply for any event indicated in the September 11 article. Arno
We don't have an article for September 11, 2001, though. Actually, we do, it just points to this page already. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't really agree with the main title of the article being just a date. We know perfectly what September 11, 2001 stands for, but we may have to think for a while for other important dates in history like August 6, 1945, and even many of us don't really know what happened back then. IMO, we should specify that there was an attack on Sept. 11, but it may be unnecessary to call it "a terrorist attack". So, I go for "September 11, 2001 attacks" (the current name of the article). Sabbut 18:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Unlike Hiroshima, September 11th is commonly referred to by the date. In fact, there is no other widely accepted name for the incident. Even the term "events of september 11, 2001" receives far more google hits than "september 11, 2001 attacks." I highly doubt that 60 years from now many people who have heard about the attacks would hear the date and not know what was being referred to. Going back to the example, Hiroshima is a city. By your argument, we move the discussion of the bombings to a page called August 6, 1945 attacks. I'm open to other suggestions, but of the three choices, I think September 11, 2001 is the best. Maybe September 11: Attack on America would be better? Anthony DiPierro 02:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Linking on the page

I don't care who you attribute the word "terrorist" to but it must be linked on this page.--Jiang 20:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_3&oldid=1137180281"