Jump to content

Talk:Aftermath of the September 11 attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names

[edit]

what were the names of the hijackers? Osama Bin Laden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.235.44 (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Centre Environmental Organisation

[edit]

An organisation called the World Trade Centre Environmental Organisation has suggested through the help desk e-mail that we insert a link to their page see [1].

Capitalistroadster 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Market Activity Investigations

[edit]

What's the significance of this section? There was a suspicion of coordinated trading with the September 11, 2001 attacks. The conclusion was nothing happened. patsw 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional opening

[edit]

The beginning of the article feels more suitable to a pulp novel than a reliable information source. Maybe this should be toned down?

"The news shocked the world. Men and women wept openly."

I am aware of men and women weeping openly at many occasions, e.g. shock results at sports events, death of famous celebrities, etc.

"The event left a lasting impression on many Americans. The question, "Where were you on September 11, 2001?" has become a common topic of discussion, and will be for years to come."

I feel this is emotional rather than informational. Do we need to add this sentence to death of JFK article, first landing on the moon, death of Princess Diana? .... I suggest these two sentences are removed. 

 -- MarkG
I agree, I'll remove the sentences. /AB-me (chit-chat) 19:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also against including this overly melodramatic opening. However we do need something.. many people have written about the sense of solidarity and the mourning in the weeks following the attacks. As long as we're citing sources it's OK. Rhobite 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, the opening is the most ridiculously biased muddle I have ever read on this site. Nice to know what Lord Ashdown, whoever the hell he is, thinks of Afghanistan, as if his comments deserve to be in the opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.28 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for effects on children

[edit]

68.32.116.227 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)I was browsing the Internet and found what I think is a very good blog post that shows how 9/11 affected the life of a kid who was 10 at the time. You can read it here:[2] I would add it myself, but it's not a very noteable blog, and the first 1/3 of the post is not very NPOV (I don't know if any of those things matter). I suggested this because I noticed there were no testimonials from children under the "Effects on children" section, I think this would be a good addition.[reply]

Reference

[edit]

This just surfaced http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf and it is ideal for illustration of this: "Iraq had no role in the September 11 attacks and had no known history of a significant working relationship with Al Qaida.". Here is an excerpt: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm. Lovelight 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Tom Harrison Talk 22:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book After September 11 would be a natural related book for this entry. The book is from Reuters and published in 2003.

Add info

[edit]

Someone should add this in the appropriate spots. Israel Reacts to Terrorist Attacks on the US - 11-Sep-2001 --Shamir1 06:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Honoluluadvertiser11september2001.jpg

[edit]

File:Honoluluadvertiser11september2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal: Stereotypes

[edit]
07:15, 4 March 2007 Jagged 85 (Talk | contribs) (→See also:  added Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims) (undo)

I just reverted that year-old edit, the article seems not so good to me.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily oppressive

[edit]

The word "oppressive" in the lead sentence "the US invaded Afghanistan in order to remove the oppressive Taliban regime (which harbored al-Qaeda) and to capture al-Qaeda forces." is unnecessary, misleading and a non neutral POV. It is non neutral because in the eyes of the Taliban regime (and other such religious regimes) they would probably considered themselves righteous, pious and Godly and not unduly oppressive. It is misleading because there are many oppressive regimes but the US does not make a habit of attacking such regimes for that reason. It is unnecessary because the reason for the attack was to "remove the Taliban regime (which harbored al-Qaeda) and to capture al-Qaeda forces." and that does not change with the removal of "oppressive". -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic aftermath

[edit]

The 684 point loss should cross reference to the top 20 list on 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average' but there is no one day decline on that list for Sept 2001 (there is however a record 684 point fall but it is associated with 2008-11-13).

Also the statement that the event in 2001 held the record and was only recently replaced by the 2008 series of falls also seems to contradict the list (states the prior record was actually set in 2000?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephendmann (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aftermath of 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aftermath of 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:

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) 20:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aftermath of 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:

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) 23:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aftermath_of_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=1198147297"