Talk:September 11 attacks
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
 | Discussions on this page may turn into heated arguments. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. ( no personal attacks · assume good faith · be kind ) |
 | A fact from September 11 attacks appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 November 2015. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | 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. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. |
First big attack? change
From the text: This was the first big attack by non-Americans on the United States since 1814. What about Pearl Harbor?--Kungfuadam 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see it was clarified in the text.--Kungfuadam 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- May be pedantic, but does this still need work on it - Hawaii was not a state in 1941. Soup Dish (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- How about saying "against the United States?" Yeah, I'm pedantic too. They definitely attacked the US.Dcs002 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia must be accurate. Hawaii was not part of the US at that time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- How about saying "against the United States?" Yeah, I'm pedantic too. They definitely attacked the US.Dcs002 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- May be pedantic, but does this still need work on it - Hawaii was not a state in 1941. Soup Dish (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Fringe viewpoints & conspiracy theories change
We need to keep a sharp eye for the fringe here. I just eliminated a blatantly conspiracy-oriented sentence from this article that contained a link to a blatantly conspiracy-oriented website.
Watch out for edits that refer to "the official story." That is political rhetoric, not encyclopedic content. Much research has been done, and many officials and governmental entities have spoken about their conclusions and opinions. If an editor is referring, for example, to the published report of the 9/11 Commission, that's what they need to say. There is no single "official story." Dcs002 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- But be kind and patient with them. They truly believe they're doing the right thing in spreading their message. They are good people. It's just that we need to keep this encyclopedia neutral. Dcs002 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Motivation of attackers? change
Remarkably there is no mention of the ostensible motivations of the attackers. I am aware of two. 1) Anger at US troops on Arabia soil and 2) US support for Israel over the Palestinians. I think these sources can be found. There may be other tertiary motivations worth mentioning. Linafpinto1 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)