Talk:9-11 Attack
Workgroup category or categories | History Workgroup, Politics Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Anthony Argyriou 13:12, 6 July 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Questions
Is this the best title for this article? Looking at the redirects already creates, other options would be "September 11th terrorist attack", or "September 11, 2001 attacks", and the plural (or singular) of the existing title or the options. My personal preference would be September 11, 2001 attack or September 11, 2001 al-Qaeda attack, but it's not a strong preference. I do think the title should be singular, as it was one coordinated effort.
There are at least a couple of naming questions: How should the group, and its leader, be referred to? The article inconsistently uses al Qaeda and al-Qaeda, and uses Usama bin Ladin, even though almost everyone other than the U.S. government uses "Osama" rather than "Usama". Anthony Argyriou 13:12, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- very good points! I prefer the "9-11" variation as more pointed than "Spetember 11" (it downplays the month -- also because 911 is the emergency phone #). Yes, "Osama" is better and I will change that. Richard Jensen 15:56, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- I'd prefer "9/11" to "9-11", but that messes with the mediawiki software. It'll be nice to see a good article here without having to constantly chase off the conspiracy theorists like they do at Wikipedia. Anthony Argyriou 16:52, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- I think the plural sounds better than the singular, but it's definitely better to use "September 11" rather than "9-11". Carl Jantzen 09:08, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
- very good points! I prefer the "9-11" variation as more pointed than "Spetember 11" (it downplays the month -- also because 911 is the emergency phone #). Yes, "Osama" is better and I will change that. Richard Jensen 15:56, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Objections
I'm sorry but was this written by the issuing office of the Project for a New American century? This is extremely biased, especially the Saddam Hussein part when you hint he had a hand in 9/11. He did not.
Is there anyway we can clean this up to meet standards?
- History Category Check
- General Category Check
- Politics Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Politics Advanced Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- History Developed Articles
- Politics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- History Developing Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- History Stub Articles
- Politics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- History External Articles
- Politics External Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Politics Underlinked Articles
- History Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Politics Cleanup
- Cleanup