Talk:September 11 attacks

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks page.

I just restored a massive deletion of commentary on the attacks by Martin Amis which was deleted as "Massive self-promotion." It happened to simply be some of the most interesting testimony I found when creating the article, and I am not Martin Amis, nor even a great fan of his work in general. Other commentary can be added to the article as people see fit. ~ Kalki 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, should have checked to see who appended all of that in advance. In any case, no single contributor who isn't a bit more notable should be given that kind of attention, at least in my opinion. It would make sense to either cut his content down to one of the quotes in question, or add a great deal more from more well known sources. Just my two cents. ~ The editor in Question.


The September 11, 2001 attacks have been important in the history of jihad and therefore Islam.--Inesculent 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is important in the history of the extremes of human bigotry, stupidity and sheer malice, is important in a many ways to the history of the world, as attacks by terrorist zealots on thousands of innocent people's lives, but that doesn't mean we should put the category "Earth" and "Humans" on the page, or categories tags for Islam and all the other religious and political designations that people use on the pages for "Stupidity" "Bigotry" and such, just because many religious and political zealots happen to be stupid bigots. The article is not fundamentally about Islam, and should not be categorized as if it was anymore than an article on the Cuba or Puerto Rico should be labeled "Christianity" because they were incidentally "discovered" by Christopher Columbus on an ostensibly Christian as well as mercantile and political mission. There are connections and relations that can be made between nearly everything, but that doesn't mean that they all belong in the same categories. The Universe and everything in it is a subject of study and speculation for Islam, and nearly every other religion, and therefore important for them, that doesn't mean we put labels of every religion on every subject on the entire project: Stars, Moons, Cats, Dogs, Cows and everything. To put the "category" "Islam: on this article about the acts of a few deluded nitwit assholes, just because they happened to think that they were good and great muslims for killing thousands of people is not appropriate. The ultimate Jihad is against such human stupidity as leads people into embracing paths of tyranny or terrorism as if they were holy and sacred paths of righteousness. The Wikipedia article doesn't use such a category label, but it does use "Islamist terrorism" — that might be appropriate, but I don't think there are enough articles here for there to be any real need for such a category. ~ Hand 10:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Saifullah Shaykh Osama bin Laden is a highly respected Islamic scholar in the Islamic world. Ulema Council of Pakistan[1], Humood bin Uqla Ash-Shu'aibi[2], Abu Qatada[3], Fathi Yakan[4], Musa al-Qarni[5], and many others who don't admit it believe that he is the lion of Islam and support his actions.--Inesculent 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nearly anyone some people agree with or admire can be called a great scholar or a hero by them. Some people who hate him might believe him to be Satan or Iblis incarnate, but that doesn't make it so.

I believe any committed terrorists no matter what their professed religion, politics, zeal or intelligence are less admirable in the ultimate scheme of things than a rabid dog or a plague flea on a sewer rat's ass. Even rats and plague fleas can do a lot of damage to innocent human beings but they remain fleas and rats, and really can't help being what exactly what they are. A terrorist is someone whose bigotry has blinded him to what it actually takes to be a decent human being, and the great tragedy is they do have the capacity to be so much more than people driven by hatreds and contempt for others who do not bow down to the same idols of human minds and customs as they do. I'm one of those people who will assert that any religious or political belief system that drives people to value their capacity for hatred, destruction, and oppression more than their capacities for love, creation, and charity is a foul abysmal idolatry of their own prejudices, no matter what holy names they might give to them. I also believe that at the core of most religions are actually forms of wisdom and respect far different from the foul ways they have often been perverted by human bigotry. ~ Hand 11:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a difficulty subject seen from many varying views. Could I ask that words are carefully chosen in this discussion and that you both assume good faith and remain civil. This is a platform for information rather than what seems to be moving towards a more heated debate. I have been watching RC so the edits and reversions show up. My thanks in advance & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some of my previous editing after being up for a while, and and I had to get some sleep. I woke up a short while ago, and surveyed the situation here, to see that the worst of the tags was re-applied with the warning that it should not be further removed without discussion.

I have worked on many wikis, and browsed many I've never actually worked on. After a bit of stress recently, I started out editing here earlier, thinking I might just relax a bit and focus on doing some work on the pages for comedians, but reverted some obvious vandalism on a few pages, and then decided I'd do a little work on the Learned Hand page. After I did some work there I then reverted what seemed to me to be a rather obvious over-extension of a category, of someone attaching the category label for a religion to some specific acts of terrorism that have had pages created here. There is a category for Islam at Wikipedia that has existed a hell of a lot longer than the one here, and it is not applied to their article on these terrorists attacks, and I assume that if there has been any effort to apply the tag there was similarly rejected as inappropriate. I am not really inclined to look through the long edit log and 29 pages of archived discussions to see if this actually occurred or not.

The act of labeling this act with the category tag for "Islam" could be seen either as an effort of someone who is among the pro-terrorist factions to imply a fundamental endorsement of Islam for their paths of terrorism or anti-Islamic factions to stain Islamic traditions in general by implying that there is such fundamental endorsement to such acts of extreme bigotry and malice. Despite a historically greater tendency to the glorification of militarism and oppression of people of other faiths that might be argued as evident in Islam or any of the other "Abrahamic religions", I believe such diabolical acts are not promoted as acts of sanctity by most sane people of any religious, non-religious, political or military traditions.

I believe that there is a fundamental endorsement of such acts and such characterizations by many people blinded by particular forms of bigotry and devoted to them, and certainly many bigots and insane people seek to make even their worst impulses seem religiously sanctified, but I believe that despite the widespread dominion of ignorance, confusion and bigotry in many forms over people's lives, that most muslims and most people of other faiths would say that extremist terrorism should not be treated as if it were a sixth pillar of Islam. Whether the effort to do so comes from rabidly pro-terrorist nitwits or from rabidly anti-Islamic or generally anti-religious nitwits I do object to any attempt to imply that it should be endorsed, sanctified, or even condoned by people who are not nitwits.

That I use the term nitwit as a term for those who would endorse terrorism, or endorse attaching the implication of a religious obligation to it, might be seen as unduly harsh or merely provocative by some, but I use the term in referring to people of very limited rationality, extreme bias, or extreme indifference to avoid using even harsher terms. Many nitwits and insane people of many political and religious traditions can cite many chapters and verses of laws, manifestos and scripture to support their particular forms of extremism, bigotry, or indifference to the lives and fortunes of others as absolute imperatives that others must accept or be damned. Most people who have not lost a great deal of their common sense and sense of common humanity tend to reject anyone's claims of absolute virtue or authority, examine many peoples views of things, think for themselves, let others do the same, and reject the temptations to embrace the worst paths of tyranny, terrorism, dishonesty or cowardice no matter what fragments of laws or scriptures might be cited to support them. ~ Hand 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Okay, folks. There is a lot of unnecessarily incendiary posting going on here, all the more remarkable because from what I can see, the two editors arguing, after stripping away the diatribes, disagree more on technical details than on their overall POV. Wikiquote is not a forum to rant about the problems in the world, however tragic they may be. Please do not use a technical discussion as an excuse to rage on about world events.

In cases where basic issues like categorization become contentious and highly charged, there are useful rules of thumb to follow. Here are three I see relevant to this article:

  • Be civil. Although the invective here does not seem to be directed against the editors, I would remind the participants that talking about a subset of a population in hateful terms is pretty much guaranteed to offend plenty of innocent folks, much in the same way that you may criticise your own brother for major failings but would still feel compelled to clobber anyone who attacks him. There is no need to vilify anyone, even terrorists, in order to select a category for the article.
  • When in doubt, see how Wikipedia categorizes. Wikipedians are far more likely than Wikiquotians to have hammered out reasonable compromises after long, intense arguments over POV. In this case, it appears Wikipedia has established w:Category:Islamist terrorism for some very specific reasons:
    • "Islamist" has a more specific political connotation, avoiding implicating all of Islam by using the adjective "Islamic". This appears to be reflected in the general English-language press. It is therefore doubly recommended.
    • "Islamist terrorism" is a logical subcategory of "Islam" and of "Terrorism", just as "Christian terrorism" is a logical subcategory of "Christianity" and "Terrorism". (Just as "Atheist terrorism" would be of "Atheism" and "Terrorism", too, if Wikipedia had enough material and editor attention to distinguish between it and "Communist terrorism", to which "Atheist terrorism" currently redirects. I'm not aware that all "atheist terrorists" are also Communists, but maybe I'm just not sufficiently informed.)
  • Follow the rules of Wikimedia categorization. In this case, an article should never be in both a category and its parent category. If Category:Islam is the parent of another, more selective and appropriate category, it should not also be included in the article.

Based on this analysis, I would recommend that we add Category:Islamist terrorism to categorize this article, which itself should belong to Category:Islam and Category:Terrorism. Don't be surprised if, once the "Terrorism" category is established, that others may be inspired to create articles that might may followers of other faiths uncomfortable. (In each and every case, of course, the articles will still have to follow Wikiquote policies, guidelines, and practices.)

If everyone currently participating here agrees, I will perform whatever maintenance is not done already by you folks. If not, we can bring Category:Islamic terrorism to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion to discuss how best to handle this situation. Let me know what you think. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe your analysis and recommendations are appropriate, and following the current WIkipedia practice here should be acceptable. I myself would prefer to focus on other things and not engage in a debate on how to categorize terrorist acts. ~ Hand 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Islamist terrorism" sounds like hairsplitting. Islamic terrorism is fine; though, as I explained below I prefer Jihad based on traditional Islamic literature.--Inesculent 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The Islamic equivalent of Christian terrorism is "Muslim terrorism". The equivalent of Islamist is Christianist.--Inesculent 04:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism[edit]

"Islamist" terrorism is a horrific invention. I would personally categorize it as Jihad as was the Banu Qurayza campaign. The ultimate goal of Islam is world domination. It is regrettable that some Western Muslims have invented terms like "Islamism".--Inesculent 04:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What you or I would "personally categorize" anything on Wikiquote is is irrelevant. We strive to use categories that accurately describe their included articles based on the use of terms and phrases in the English language. We determine connotations based on the use of such terms by mainstream English-language publishers. While this cannot be a guarantee of accuracy to all peoples in all subjects, this kind of reliable sourcing of controversial terms is Wikimedia's only practical way of achieving consensus in highly contested subjects.
Since we typically don't have the resources to do in-depth analyses of such sources at Wikiquote, we tend to look to Wikipedia for guidance on controversial subjects. I have started an inquiry about the use of the term "Islamist terrorism" there, and hope to have some information and ideas in the next couple of weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to etch something in stone at WP and dictate it at WQ.--Inesculent 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Turning point in Islam[edit]

Like the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the 9/11 attacks have been an important turning point in the history of Islam. Since this event, the interest in Islam has grown tremendously. For example, a higher percentage of people know that the Quran has 114 chapters, what the different hadiths are, the elements of Islamic laws, etc.--Inesculent 04:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the above post to determining the content of this quote article on September 11, 2001 attacks. Please confine your article talk page posts to this subject, and avoid side trips into discussions on Islam in general. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If you peruse my post, you will extract the relevance of 9/11 in "the history of Islam." However, if you want to respond for the sake of responding, then that would be trolling.--Inesculent 10:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Islam[edit]

  1. This does not diminish the reputation of Islam.
  2. It is not an attack on all religions. Each religion is unique. For example, the differences between Islam and Jainism are enormous.
  3. I don't understand why a user is trying to defend religion as a whole. The 19 jihadists and their leaders were inspired by Islam. They were not proponents of the Bahá'í faith and didn't believe in the co-equality of all religions.--Inesculent 04:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Inesculent, I don't understand why you feel the need to talk about attacking or defending Islam or religion in general. This is not an encyclopedia article about religious conflicts, it is a quote article specifically about the September 11 attacks. As I said above, please do not use this talk page to discuss side issues. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I comprehend why you feel that I am defending or attacking Islam. We are discussing an issue that has arisen out of an edit to the article. If you don't wish to have a dialogue, then you may recuse yourself.--Inesculent 10:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

British Quotes?[edit]

This were attacks against the United States; why are so many of these quotes from foreign (British) media? It makes little sense. 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

More quotes from US sources would be welcome, but when I was initially creating the article I simply found many interesting quotes on the subject from British sources. There are many articles which could use many more additions, including this one, but there are only so many articles any person can work on, and I stopped working on this intently once it seemed to be a adequately large article on the subject. ~ Kalki 16:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of a single source[edit]

I see here that, in the Aftermath section, nine quotes come from a single writer and a single article. Per weight concerns, trimming may be warranted. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


Okay how many quotes are allowed on a event page?(StarWarsFanBoy 20:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Fred Phelps[edit]

Excuse me for adding the offensive quote from Fred Phelps. It is still a quote regarding 9/11, and it would enhance the neutrality of this article. Micasta 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)