Talk:September 11/Archive 1

11 September attacks

I strenuously object to the hijackers being listed among the notable people who died in the 9/11 attacks. They should not be glorified in any way, shape or form. They were the lowest form of life, pure scum with no regard for humanity. DavidSteinle (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Then campaign to get their articles removed. We mention everyone with an article who was born or died on a particular date. They are no different. --Golbez (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the entry in the Deaths section about the 11th September attacks is completely out of place. The event is listed in the events section and there's a mention at the top of the page, which is also questionable. I don't know of any similar reference in the Deaths section of any "Day" page: Dresden bombing, Coventry blitz, Pearl Harbor, Asian Tsunami, none of them are so referenced, and quite rightly. I'll list Barbara Olson and David Angell in their own right. That is surely sufficient. Arcturus 11:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it a habit of putting things into articles multiple times, but in this instance, I think it is used as a sort of diasambiguation notice. Many people looking for the 11 September attacks will look up "September 11" and they should be pointed to the specific page with a note near the top of the page. The reason those other incidents are not listed the same way, is that those events are not commonly referred to as just the day, like "September 11". Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing about people dieing in the pearl harbor attacks, I think it's quite out of place that these "average" people are listed in the deaths section.

They're not average, they have articles. Olsen and Angell would certainly have qualified to be listed anyway, even if they'd died of heart attacks, O'Neill probably would too. Average Earthman 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Garnet (Ace) Bailey and Berry Berenson would have qualified had they died outside of 9/11. Bailey was part of two Stanley Cup champions with the Boston Bruins, and Berenson was the widow of Anthony Perkins and an established photojournalist in her own right. DavidSteinle (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No argument against putting Bailey. As for Berenson, being the widow of a famous actor doesn't merit a wikipedia page nor a mention of her death. Neither does being an established photojournalist. There are many, many, many established photojournalists. Even her wikipedia page is redundant. I vote to remove her from this death list as well as delete her wikipedia page.

I've added a clarification -- previous it said the attacks "destroyed the World Trade Center"; the World Trade Center is a complex of 7 buildings. The towers and I think one other building were destroyed. Since the towers were the target and the other building isn't really famous, I just changed it to "destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center" - Ryanluck 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually look at the article; all seven buildings of the WTC were destroyed. --Golbez 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, only 3 of the seven were destroyed. I'm not sure what article you saw; the wikipedia article clearly says only the twin towers and WTC building 7 were destroyed.

Get your eyes checked. --Golbez 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. The south tower (2 WTC) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. The north tower (1 WTC) fell at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:46 a.m. A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell."

After that no building collapsed in the article. Although they were probably very much damaged. You get your eyes checked

The word "collapsed" is different from the word "destroyed". --Golbez 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The names of the terrorists have no business being mentioned prominently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 20:18, June 30, 2007

First, sign your remarks. Second, justify your statement. Third, you're wrong. --Golbez 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not "mentioned prominently", four terrorist names are simply listed among names of the dead. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be mentioned at all, period. That they are mentioned at all and that you are actually trying to add them back, is wrong on so many levels. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They are mentioned because we have articles on them; that is how things work here. If you don't think they should be here, try getting their articles deleted. --Golbez 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make me feel any different on it (though I will try to get those articles deleted...doubt it will happen), but I removed the 4 names in question out of the "Victims of 9/11" "section" and into their own "section". Excuse while I go scald my mouse and take 28 hour shower in bleach. *feels dirty* *shudder* - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Our goal is, at least in part, to include information on notable or historically subjects, events, objects, and persons. You don't have to like these people. No one is asking you to like these people. We are, however, asking that you stay out of the way of building an encyclopedia. This section of this page isn't the cheer section where we talk about who we enjoy or don't. It's not the sum of human knowledge, nor of human opinion. It's an alphabetical listing of people, presumably with articles on Wikipedia, who died that day. That's all it is, and that's all it should be. As much as I can understand and sympathize with your strong emotional feelings on this subject, those feelings do lead me to question whether you can really be a neutral encyclopedian in this matter. If anything, perhaps the full section and/or category should be renamed to something more akin to "deaths," rather than "victims." The reader can make their own decisions regarding who is or isn't a victim, we shouldn't really be doing that for them. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I agree with ya. I let my opinions get in the way. My apologizes.

I did, as you can tell, switch the section around so it is victims under "victims" and bad guys under the bad guy section...so hopefully that will work for everyone.

Again, my apologizes for my opinions getting in the way, that is on me. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Factoid: September 11, 2007 - First time the 911 date falls on a Tuesday since September 11, 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.152.19 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I find the wording about and "unplanned plane crash" kind of odd. Perhaps a different wording, such as "unexpected" or "mysterious" instead of "unplanned". Werewolf nr (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Arturus's comment. I agree. I think September 11 2001 is a major event. However, there are days of greater significance such as November 11 1918 (End of WW1 and Remembrance Day), June 6 (D-Day) etc. I think there is justification for these to be reported in the intro. Wallie (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Didnt anyone notice that the sentence describing the group of people dying in the 911 events lists them ALL as "victims"? i think its obviously incorrect, and i will change that, to "victims/perpetrators". i dont think this is controversial, but i want to note that i am doing it, and hope anyone reverting it will comment on reasons. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Day as a Holiday

This link to Patriot_Day was added and then removed, by me. While congress asked the President to declare every Sept. 11th "Patriot Day", it has not caught on as a National Holiday, as such. From the Patriot Day entry: "Despite the law's passage and Bush's proclamation, the effort to make September 11 a national holiday has been widely rejected by the American public, who view the effort as both an act of jingoism and an act of "handing the emotional victory over to the terrorists" This day of observance should not be confused with Patriot's Day, a holiday celebrated primarily in Massachusetts that commemorates the Battle of Lexington and Concord during the Revolutionary War. Wisconsin also celebrates Patriots' Day by closing its public schools." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notchcode (talk • contribs) .

Now withstanding everything you wrote, it has still been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, so it is therefore official. I fully agree with you that it is confusing to have the name "Patriot Day", because the name is already used by northwestern states for other purposes. --Asbl 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Alva Edison

Thomas Alva Edison's Birthday! Please add

He was born on February 11th, actually.

Other use note at top of page

Since "September 11" is so strongly connected in the public imagination with the 2001 terrorist attack, I've added that note to the top of the page. This should be helpful, since there seem to be quite a few pages linking to this article when they want to refer to the terrorist attacks (see What links here). --The Famous Movie Director 06:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved by --Cerejota 08:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) because of wrong placement at "September 11" section

I have moved the media shorthand notice into a separate section.

I think this notice being used in the intro paragraph fails the Wikipedia POV test of not being geo-centric (ie, for Chileans September 11 - Septiembre 11 - was a very significant date long before the attacks in the USA). Yet I also think a disambiguation effort might justify a separate section on media usage, although in all honesty the disambiguation tag on the top fulfills this task better, and I open discussion as to if this section should be removed altogether. I'll be watching for replies.

--Cerejota 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Is this document http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_fr.swf of any interest? Regards, --Powo 13:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

Message

A message was left for me that I had edited on the article page or this page. I have never done so. No idea how that happened. 81.131.77.243 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Holiday heading title

Most dates use ==Holidays and observances== for the heading title. This date has a ==Holiday== heading along with an ===Other observances=== subheading. Is there a reason for this, or should the section be consolidated to conform with other date pages? Novac 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Walker

Removed the Birth Entry for Paul Walker, as he was born on 9/12. Liqker 08:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Poltava

The Battle of Poltava article gives the date of the battle as June 28, 1709, not September 11. Either this page or the article itself is in error. Grandin 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

111?

The 111 is for a normal year and not a leap year, correct? Either way it is strange thinking that 9/11 is also the mark for 111 more days in a year. -24.92.41.95 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same, leap or not - after the leap day, every day is the same distance from the end of the year. --Golbez 23:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Entries with no heading

I have an impression that September 11 is idee fixe for Americans. Thousands people died at every day of year. I haven't however see any of them marked as "that day thousands people were gassed at Auschwitz" "that day thousands people died in massacres in Ruanda" "That day hundreds of people died from hunger (nobody cares for them, i think because they are not Americans)" . I am going to remove from deaths that remark unless someone will provide me rationale for this - after all there is already reference to terrorist attack at events, and that should suffice. Or i will start to add in every day in deaths sentences like "that day thousands people died there and schmere". szopen

Read Nine-eleven - it may take on a more symbolic meaning in the American mind, and those in the emergency services.kiwiinapanic 01:01 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Whilst the article is not the place for comments like "September 11 will forever be a black date" and that sort of stuff, it is worth recording the fact that since the attacks the date has become a commonly understood shorthand (particularly in the media) for the attacks themselves. I have added it, in hopefully NPOV way, simply as a definition of current usage. --Hrothgar 13:57, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I find the presence of the entry Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the Deaths section somewhat troubling, as it gives the victims an elevated status compared to other non-famous deaths. -- Dissident 02:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Heh. There are plenty of non-famous people in Wikipedia ;-) Anyway, I think I was the one that added the link a while back. Previously, the only person listed for that date (at least for several months before I edited the page) was Barbara K. Olson. There were lots of fairly important people on the planes and in the buildings, and I didn't think it was appropriate to elevate just one above all the rest, ergo the link to the casualties page. —Mulad 01:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

9/11 may have been a day of a huge terrorist attack, but not everyone who died on 9/11/2001 were killed due to the attacks. Are you sure you're not missing fatalities that occurred unrelated to the 9/11 attacks? Rickyrab 23:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is missing, feel free to add them. I don't think it's appropriate to elevate certain individuals within the group that was killed in the attacks, at least on this page. If someone important died elsewhere from choking on a ham sandwich or whatever, they can certainly get their own line above or below the casualties list link. —Mulad 01:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

I've heard (and this may be rumor) that the birthday of one of the Columbine shooters is September 11th... Don't know which one, or if they are worthy of mention anyway. DryGrain 08:44, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That appears to be true. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold says that Klebold was born on the 11th in 1981. —Mulad 01:21, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

http://www.911closeup.com/

I think you should go there. Read the section on passenger flight lists, among the other things covered there.

The_Fly 02:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're not peddling in conspiracy theories here. TPK 02:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Picture?

Why is there a picture for the 2001 Sep 11 event? I do not recall seeing a photo on any other date page. I propose that this be removed or at least relocated to the page on the topic (i.e. Sep 11, 2001 attacks). Thoughts? Hu Gadarn 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a picture at November 22 and one other page (as I recall) as well. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but do these pictures serve value on such (date) pages? Particularly as large as the Sep.11 one? I am not downplaying the significance of the event or the visual power of the picture, but isn't that what the article pages are for? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks

I'm really hesitant about bringing this up once more, so I apologize in advance if this suggestion offends anyone...but wouldn't it make sense to replace the individual victim names with a single pointer to Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks? There are only a dozen individual entries at the moment, but if the precedent is that the victims of 9/11 should be listed individually, dozens or hundreds of entries on this page will become untenable. (Again, please take no offense at this suggestion; it's in the interests of practicality, not to diminish any of these individuals). -- Jim Douglas 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And a logical extension of this question, does it make sense to list the names of the 1994 Rwanda massacre (up to 1,000,000 dead), the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Bosniak males in Srebrenica, or the up to 80,000 dead in the Darfur Crises? Perhaps, perhaps not. I think the important thing is consistency. Hu Gadarn 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone want to weigh in on this? I see the list of 2001 dead growing again. I would like to remove this and leave the redirect to the linked page (2001 deaths). Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the problem is, why does this particular date need to be pruned? --Golbez 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because if you notice, none of the people listed for sept 11, are "noteworthy" except for the fact that they were killed during the sept 11 terrorist attacks. One of them is even simply listed as the widow of another person. No disrespect for the people who died, but if you look at the other people on the list, there's a bit of a difference. If we list the sept 11 victims on this page, then--to be fair, in a sense--we have to go to the date of every major disaster and list each individual victim on the death list. Which isn't very easy to do. Listing them on the main death list seems to give the sept 11 victims are getting some sort of precedent above other disaster victims, or even the victims of other terrorist attacks. Which isn't very nice at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.160.111 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If they aren't notable, then work to get their articles deleted. So long as they have articles, they get listed. No, we don't have to go to every other major disaster, unless of course people of note died in those. Just as a list of Titanic victims would include those with Wikipedia articles, so this one does as well. --Golbez (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• I got locked for vandalism for trying to remove the names of all the victims of the attacks and replaced it with the single link.....

• I agree with this person, there's no need to list these certain victims of the terrorist attack seperately from the list as if they are somehow "better" victims of the 9/11 attacks. I'm removing the seperated list of people from under the category link and will let the link do the talking. If anyone has a problem with this, I guess feel free to replace it, but please give your rationale here on the talk page first. I don't mean this as a disrespect to any people previously listed under the link, but I feel that it's better to send readers to a comprehensive listing of all deaths. In long lists of albums in discography sections of bands, you don't list a couple albums then link to all the rest, it's just one link to the discography, which is a seperate article, so that's my precedent for doing this. Gwright86 11:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo

you could and have said that.

And it's still true. Your judgment is suspect.

read carefully: No other date page has an image, and it is unfair to other events to feature one. This page is about the date sept 11, not the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Read carefully:

• January 28
• November 22

Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head. Perhaps you ought to take your own advice about "reading carefully" and stop pushing your particular heavy barrow. If you're going to do the know-it-all snob act, it helps to actually know something. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Free speech?

Um, did anyone notice how somebody added "Free Speech" as one of the deaths? --Michael58.169.209.150 07:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:SOCK, no comment. --SockingIt 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about vandalism, a joke, silent protest? - Redmess (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1541: destruction of Santiago, Chile?

No other pages mention that, neither the Santiago, Chile page or Michimalonco, who supposedly did the destroying. In fact, the city was founded that year. What was the source for this one? --AW 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prescript

Is the World Trade Center prescript at the start of the article really necessary? It's just another event, and doesn't really have much relevance to non-Statesians. --84.64.74.71 13:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement is true only for the sort whose sole source of outside information is the News of the World. --CalendarWatcher 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The United States is not the centre of the world. --84.68.123.51 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I too find it odd (the inclusion of the Sept. 11, 2001 ref at the page start). I recognize that it has an important role for many, including many outside the USA. However, its inclusion is value-ladden, i.e. that this event is more important than any other in the events section. That's why I don't believe it warrants a special prescript at the start of the page. My $0.02. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the idea that the reference to the World Trade Center at the beginning is because it's more important than any of the following events or that the US takes precedence over any other country in the world--but the simple fact that the event itself is reffered to as 9/11, 9-11, or September 11th--which (although I could be wrong) no other event on this day happens to be known as (at least not to the extent as the WTC attacks), and because of that has a very good reason to be at the top of the page, as someone trying to look up that actual event may end up here. If there is another event (like the 1973 Chilean coup d'état) that shares it's most common or well-known name with the date, it's welcome to also be put at the top of the page. But you can't ignore the fact that the 9-11 attacks are most widely known as just that, and the chances of someone ending up on this page looking for information on the attacks are pretty high.

Although I won't hide the fact that I'm an American and a New Yorker (got a feeling if I didn't state that myself right away, my statement might've been discredited by some when I was inevitably "outed" as a NYer), so my opinion can be taken as a little bias, but I think my arguements still stand nonetheless. Irish♣Pearl 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okinas and Jesus's birthday.

Golbez: Er, the "use English" requirement generally doesn't need to go the talk page. Hawaii is quite simply the localization used in English, just as Tokyo is used rather than the more precise romanization of Tōkyō, and Art Deco is used rather than art décoratif. This is doubly true since the sentence currently refers to the _state_ of Hawaii, not the islands, and the state's name is unquestionably Hawaii.

As for the Jesus thing... it is mildly interesting, but not really connected to September 11th. How many scholars have proposed specific dates for various events in Jesus's life? Thousands. We could probably fill every date on the calendar with one scholar proposing something related to Jesus happened then. Bishop Ussher dating the world is notable; this Mr. Martin does not appear to be a particularly notable one. SnowFire 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, check http://www.hawaii.gov/portal/ - a .gov site which uses okinas. So perhaps you should start any crusade on Hawaii, not here. As for the others, he has an article, doesn't he? Do many of the 'thousands' others? I can yield on this one, though, since you're right, it's just one possible date out of probably 366, all of which probably have theories attached. But, I think the okina thing is much larger than this article. --Golbez 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm. I completely agree that that issue is larger than this article. There is no need to "start the crusade," however; I did look at Hawaii beforehand to make certain that I wasn't insane, and you'll note that they do not use the okina there (well, aside from discussing the name and mentioning the title in Hawaiian). So I believe that to be preferred Wikipedia style. As for the government site... interesting. This is a bit of a change. That said, if you look deeper into the website, you'll see that they're inconsistent- the Hawaii State Ethics Commission and the Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, but the Hawa`i Revised Statutes. And even if the state government did self-identify as Hawai`i completely, I'm quite certain that the official name nationally is still with no okina. Here's the Act of Statehood. SnowFire 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lindbergh's Des Moines Speech

Why did Golbez revert "* 1941 - Charles Lindberg's Des Moines Speech accusing the British, Jews and FDR's administration of pressing for war with Germany."? Jim Bowery 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes the speech so important that it should be included in a short list of the most important events in world history? Did it change history? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Beatrice Cenci

She was accused of patricide, not fratricide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaons (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) According to her Wiki page, she died on August 22, not September 11.Esaons 16:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Birthdate

There was a verse in Matthew concerning the positioning of the stars in the sky...especially Virgo(though not referred by name) "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon at her feet, pained to be delivered" On 1 Tishiri (Jewish Calendar) or September 11, 3BC that exact thing happened in astronomy...the elipticall orbit of Virgo (depicted as a virgin female) was having the sun positioned over her 'head' and the moon positioned over her 'feet' this was probably the time where Jesus was born. But that is not in the gospel of Matthew but in the Book of Revelation.

Even if this is only added with a (disputed) notation after it that would be fine as there is a lot of science and math that points to September 11th, 3 BC as being Jesus's correct birth date.

No such verse exists in Matthew or Revelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.109.41 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add - Chilean Constitution Approved

New Chilean Constitution, replacing the suspended one of 1925, was approved by referendum on September 11, 1980.
Ref: http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_2libertyChile.htm

(I can't edit the main page so I am suggesting that this event is added!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.140.201 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Zenta 1697

This is a far more important date than many presented - it forever ended the Turkish threat against Europe. I wanna add it in, so please let me know if any disagree or if you decide on which one to remove in place? Tourskin (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article about that specific event? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zenta . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.109.41 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Different picture needed

The 2008 September 11 POTD/featured picture is going to be 9/11 related [1] so the On This Day picture shouldn't be about the same topic, dreadful as it was. How about the World Wildlife Fund logo, as that is something hopeful rather than doom and gloom related, like coups and wars etc? 86.147.162.92 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Also, I seem to remember this OTD photo was used for OTD last year. 9/11 shouldn't have the monopoly, every year. Other momentous events have happened that should be highlighted. This one is still so close to us but we need perspective too. 86.147.162.92 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

You are wrong. Not everyone who has an article deserves an entry here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide context for this discussion. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent removal of someone from the list of births (check article history). I was under the impression that the articles on days should list every person who was born or died on that day who has an article, regardless of subjective notability standards. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Being the subject of a bio article is the minimum requirement (WP:DOY). This has not been widely enforced because no litmus test exists to discern which individuals possess the extra notability needed for inclusion. It is in the spirit of the project to include only those individuals who are of significant global notability in order to keep the lists manageable and provide the highest level of utility to the largest number of readers. That said, I recognize that there are a large number of entries that should not be listed but are (I personally have not undertaken the task of removing them and few others have). This specific topic has not been addressed sufficiently because conflict rarely comes up. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have no vested interest in this entry, I simply thought that was how we did things. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Saints and Blesseds who share Sept 11 as a feast day

St. Paphnutius, St. Adelphus, St. Almirus, St. Ambrose Edward Barlow, St. Bodo, St. Vincent of Leon, St. Theodora, Bl. Caspar Kotenda, St. Daniel, St. Deiniol, St. Diodorus, St. Emilian, St. Felix & Regula, Bl. Francis Takea, Bl. John-Gabriel Perboyre, St. Patiens, Bl. Peter Ikiemon, St. Peter of Chavanon

I apparantly can't add the ones that aren't already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.238.94 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Special mention of 9/11 in the intro

Should mention of September 11 2001 be made in the intro? Other dates do not do this. I strongly think it should, as September 11 is remembered especially for this event. They same should apply to other "red letter" days, such as November 11 (End of WW1), December 7 (Pearl Harbor), June 22 (Invasion of the Soviet Union) and June 6 (D-Day) etc. Wallie (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which event of 11 September 1941 is 'remembered especially'? Would that be breaking ground for the construction of The Pentagon? The U.S. Navy being ordered to attack German U-boats? Charles Lindberg' giving a speech? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. That was a typo on my part. I have changed it. Wallie (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please centralize these discussions at WT:DAYS. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?

So really there's an article about the date? Is there an article about every date or is this one especially known for being eventful? I'm just deeply amused that such an article exists. I suppose it could be useful for people who like to do a 'this day in history' bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an article about every day, yes. You've been on Wikipedia for 2 and a half years and never noticed? --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It didn't occur to you to check before making such a superfluous entry on the talk page? I mean, there's a table on the top right corner of this page with a link to every day of September (no specific year), immediately below that is a table with links to the month of September in recent years (no specific days), and at the very bottom is a table with a link to every single day of the year (no specific year). I realize that the easiest path is often to simply ask a question on a discussion page, but please exercise prudence, especially when your question can be answered by 30 seconds worth of research. Klopek007 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Brad Bird

Brad Bird was born on September 15th and not on September 11 as noted Jatinkapadia (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Jatin Kapadia

You'll have to change his article first then, as that still states September 11. --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The references for the article all say September 11, there was an IP edit that changed the info box back in December 2008, I have fixed that edit since the references say born 11th. -- Drappel (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth of Dylan Klebold

The minimum requirement for inclusion in a date article is the existence of a bio article. This is a very simple criteria that does not lend itself to interpretation. If Dylan Klebold is not notable enough to be the subject of his own bio article, he is not notable enough to be included here. He is only notable as part of a pair which is similar to being part of a band. See also this discussion above. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He is of equal notability to his accomplice; had he performed the action alone, he would get his own article. However, to split the articles would be to duplicate content greatly. He has a bio article; it just happens to be merged into the article of his accomplice. It's not the same situation as a band, though I can see your argument there. But band articles are generally about the band, not of the individuals within it; this biography article is different from that. --Golbez (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I also consider that outside the one event the pair of them are not of global notability over time, five minutes of fame is not enough. -- Drappel (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, that's not for you to decide. If they are not notable, then get their article deleted. As long as it remains, they are notable enough for inclusion here. --Golbez (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This individual does not have sufficient notability to support a dedicated article. That is the test that is used to identify, at a minimum, who should be listed in the date articles. This is a long standing practice, it has worked very well, and it serves as a very simple and objective method for determining notability. This person is only mentioned in relation to an event, has no individual notability and therefore does not belong. It is the intention to list individuals that are of significant individual notability, otherwise the value of the articles is significantly diminished. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree; he has sufficient notability, it's just that, were the articles to be split, there would be a large amount of duplicated information in the two. You say this is a test; where is this test written? And what value does this article have if not to list all of the notable people and events pertaining to the day? --Golbez (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is codified in WP:DOY and has been the accepted practice in 100% of the cases. I think that if you separated the article, ignoring the potential duplication, the articles could not stand on individual notability. The value that I refer to is the diminished overall utility if the list becomes bloated with pseudo-notable entries. This is not a list of every notable individual and this individual isn't even notable by Wikipedia standards - the event that he was involved in was notable. The target article is not a bio by the common definition. It touches on their lives, but focuses on their actions. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pete Rose and Sept. 11, 1985

{{editsemiprotected}} I suggest adding the following Sept. 11th event for 1985: "Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb’s all-time hits record with his 4,192nd hit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkoch (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 February 2010

Done though reworded --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Overlink

is a reason for the removal of double cites to the same page.(Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a fairly long page, so there's no real harm to having a second link, especially when your edit damages the 2001 entry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a gross misreading of OVERLINK to suggest it says you aren't allowed to have more than one link in the same article, especially when they're far apart. --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As per the 2001 entry getting damaged then that can be repaired. As per Overlink explicitly stating "avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." Dont see anything validating the inclusion of such.Lihaas (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What's redundant about including a link in an item on a list, even if it appears in the introduction? It's quite rude to demand the reader scroll all the way back to the top to click the link (that they might not even know is there; they may have arrived via an anchor, etc.), and if they were opening in a new tab, then they must now return to their location in the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The link to September 11 attacks provides direct and specific support for the entry - and per WP:DAYS, that is necessary. The fact that it is also in the hat note is irrelevant. This is not an case of overlinking. A key statement from WP:OVERLINK: "Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers." -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigation header

I am going to change the navigation header. The purpose of this is to assist readers (like myself) who came to the wrong page. The 1973 Chilean coup d'état does not appear to be referred to as the September 11 or 11 September coup so I doubt someone looking for this information would accidentally arrive at this article. I typed in September 11th and arrived here and think this is the most likely path someone would inccorectly travel to come to this article. Therefore I suggest a simple redirect template suggesting the September 11 Attacks as an alternative destination. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. No argument here. That is as it should be. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

International Burn a Koran Day

clearly not non-notable, as it has a wikipedia article and fits WP:GNG. i believe that any claims that this observance is one-time constitute original research. many people plan on observing this event every year. --weev _{talk 2 me} G N A A™ 20:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weev (talk • contribs)

I see nothing in the article that indicates it is going to recur each year. Winston365 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Then put it under the main section for 2010. LiteralKa (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed IBaKD from the article, since it has been canceled. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been restored due to claims of a lack of consensus. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the Events section, as it is a future event. (it looks like it may not even happen now). See WP:DOY#What is not notable or not considered an Event. Winston365 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit requested

{{editsemiprotected}} The entry for Ian Potterfield, who died on September 11, 2007, says that he was "Manager of Armenia National Football Club". I propose to change this to the more general "football manager". A small change, but one that I cannot make myself, because the article is protected. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting grammar fix

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the Events category, note the following line: 1758 – Battle of Saint Cast: France repels British invasion during the Seven Year's War. This should be corrected to read "Seven Years' War". Sparky222b (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Winston365 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

2001 in the deaths section (or: What the Heck Are We _Doing_?)

Re. [2] and [3]: The idea is not that these folks aren't notable (perhaps they don't really meet WP:GNG, but that would be for WP:AFD to decide), but rather that they are not notable enough to be mentioned in a calendar-related article with an international scope. WP:DOY states that birth and death entries need to be subjects of their own articles. That is the minimum criterion for inclusion. WP:DOY goes on to state, "Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles." I'm not exactly sure as to where these "stringent notability requirements" are to be found, and WP:DOY doesn't give me a Wikilink to follow, but I would offer WP:RY as a calendar-related guideline bearing "stringent notability requirements" for births and deaths. Because these articles are not specific to any one country or other geographical entity--i.e., because these articles are meant to indicate not "notability" in the abstract, but rather international significance and recognition--they have to be conservatively grown and liberally pruned, lest they exceed reasonable boundaries by turning into lengthy laundry lists of everybody's favourite people. Such maintenance is performed, at least in year articles (and might as well be done in date articles, because WP:DOY, while vague about inclusion and exclusion criteria, indicates that "stringent" calendar-related rules should be applied, while--as luck would have it--WP:RY provides such rules), according to stipulations such as the following: If a person has well-formed articles on at least 10 non-English language Wikipedias (perhaps our best available gauge of international consensus that an individual is notable), then that person may be included (unless and until consensus forms against inclusion). If a person has less than 10 such articles, then that person is initially excluded (unless and until consensus forms in favour of inclusion). Although I realize that WP:RY and WP:DOY are distinct (I don't understand why they're not combined into a single calendar-article guideline, but I do acknowledge that they are separate at this time), I would suggest that to borrow inclusion and exclusion criteria from WP:RY is to satisfy WP:DOY's general requirement that (presumably) more specific "stringent notability requirements" be met in the births and deaths sections of date artilces. To this end, only two of the 9/11 hijackers (and none of the victims) meet this standard. I would also invoke the idea of WP:NOTINHERITED: A person does not passively "inherit" notability (or, in this case, international notability) from any person (e.g., Anthony Perkins, in the case of Berry Berenson) or event (e.g., the September 11 attacks). On a related note, I even have reservations about including the two internationally-covered hijackers, because they were not really notable until the day they died. Our necessary goal is neither to vilify nor to exalt anyone whose birth or death occurred on any given date (or year), but rather to present to a worldwide audience various articles about points in time that have permeated, are permeating, or will permeate the entirety of each and every continent, country, state, and city. In closing, in case I did not indicate it well enough already: I'm not saying that 9/11 wasn't notable, or that notable people didn't die on 9/11, or even that people didn't become notable as a result of 9/11. Instead, I'm just echoing and amplifying the spirit of WP:DOY itself. The birth/death section of this guideline states that editors should not find circuitous routes to asserting that an individual "has" an article--i.e, that anyone meets the minimum criterion for inclusion. The section then calls for more stringent criteria to be applied. My point, then, is that the more stringent criterion of international notability cannot appropriately be met by roundabout or clever means--means by which notability travels along a circuit through which people, other people, events, and other events become interconnected. A "stringent requirement" has to be stringent. Perhaps the WP:RY requirement will ultimately fail to satisfy most date-article contributors, but it would seem to be at least a reasonable placeholder until WP:DOY figures out what it really means by "stringent notability requirements". Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs. Please. That said, I've navigated this wall of text and I disagree strongly with what you seem to be saying, that someone can't be notable if they only became notable in the way they died. First of all, several of the people you removed are otherwise notable (Barbara Olson, David Angell, Mychal Judge) and would have warranted articles prior to 9/11. You would also probably include Dylan Klebold on that list, since until he and his friend killed a dozen or so people, he wasn't (and likely would never have been) notable. But he is, nonetheless, precisely and solely because of that act of highly-publicized murder. But to suggest we remove Atta - the person vilified (or celebrated) worldwide for spearheading possibly the largest single act of murder outside war in human history - because he was not notable until the day he died? Pardon my language, sir, but that's bullshit. You later say that that's not what you're saying, but ... it was. You said it. If you want to "echo and amplify the spirit" of DOY, perhaps you should bring this up there, as I have for the related issue of Klebold. All that said, I'm not entirely sure what your giant paragraph has to do with this article specifically, it sounds like you're grasping for a deeper meaning of DOY, which we can't provide here. Finally, I don't think we have articles on anyone who "passively" inherited notability from 9/11 or Columbine, or any other massacre; we have articles on the villains, notable victims, and heroes of each. No one passively got an article; one way or another, they earned it. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, you're probably correct on most points. On the other hand, you seem to have completely missed the point I was making in the first place. Allow me to elaborate (I'll make this even better than paragraphs!):

• "I disagree ... that someone can't be notable if they only became notable in the way they died." I also disagree. Someone can "be notable if they only became notable in the way they died." Articles on such people exist, and since notability is defined as "a topic merit[ing] its own article", the articles are presumed to be about notable topics unless AFD proves otherwise.

• However, even though someone may be notable despite raising WP:1E (or, as you call it, "bullshit") concerns, such a person's notability will be confined to some degree to the context of the one event that made them notable. In other words, such a person might not be internationally notable. 9/11 is internationally notable as an event, but certain aspects of it (e.g., particular victims) might be notable only within, say, an American context. This is not September 11 in the United States (an article that might very well be worth creating), but rather a summary of the date in a global context.

• "Several of the people you removed are otherwise notable (Barbara Olson, David Angell, Mychal Judge) and would have warranted articles prior to 9/11." Yes, you're probably right again.

• But, once again, their notability might exist within a smaller context than the context of this article.

• Klebold: See DOY talk.
• Atta: Yeah, he should probably be included, too.

• Then again, I never said he shouldn't be included. What I did is this: I mentioned, as a side thought, that I had reservations about including him. Just as someone might profess a religious belief despite a healthy dose of doubt.

• DOY: Yup, a big part of what I said is probably more suitable for DOY talk than for here.

• Yet, my comment was something of a stream of consciousness. I didn't exactly want to interrupt it with, "Hang on a sec while I switch over to the DOY talk page. *Tick, tock* Okay, I'm back now. Did you miss me?" Perhaps the stream was a bit too long or too "fluid". Perhaps it was completely stupid. Regardless, pertinent points can always be brought over to DOY talk, and impertinent babble can always be ignored. No harm done. Moving on...

• "We have articles on the villains, notable victims, and heroes of each." Agreed.

• "Notable victims" are problematic, though, if they turn out to have crossed the threshold into inclusion (not on WP as a whole, but in this article) because of their involvement in a notable event or with a notable person. Berry Berenson is a good example of someone whose name would probably remain unknown had she not both married Anthony Perkins and died in 9/11. More importantly, her name (and the names of other victims, "heroes", and whatnot) still are not well-known internationally. There's that pesky I-word again. And these are not domestically-themed articles; they are about dates that occur everywhere, and therefore ought to be as suitable for English-speaking readers in America as they are for English-speaking readers in Angola.

• "Pardon my language, sir, but that's bullshit." This might be good news for me, actually. As the greatest "enemy of the truth", might I be notable enough of a villain to be mentioned in my birthday's article? ;-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Responding to a few things: You having such doubts kind of makes me question your judgment on this, as I don't think anyone would reasonably doubt Atta's international notability. As for "notable victims", you're correct, some of them 'cross the threshold' into notability by being involved in it, but I think that AFD usually prunes those. I think about Liviu Librescu, someone who was otherwise notable and probably warranted inclusion, but only got an article after being a hero in the VT massacre. It went to AFD, but was saved because people realized he was independently notable. As for Berry Berenson... I couldn't say one way or another if she fits notability for this. I'm positive she'd have an article otherwise, though.
• As for international notability, I think you're putting too much weight on something that is fundamentally impossible to measure. I think the fact that someone has an article means they're notable enough, domestically or internationally, doesn't really matter. I see a lot of people on this page I've never heard of, and that I don't think people outside of America may have heard of, but I'm not about to start pruning them myself. This seems to be a fundamental failing of DOY; by attempting to limit who gets listed, they've come up with a weird system (it's the only place I know of in Wikipedia where something is decided by other Wikipedias... aren't we not supposed to cite other Wikipedias, ever? ;)) that may or may not have any bearing on reality.
• All that said, I suppose I should apologize for my gruff tone earlier. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: to add Battle of Vienna, 1683

cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.109.41 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Vienna is already listed on September 12, which is the day the actual battle occurred. The date in the infobox on Battle of Vienna seems to have bounced around between the 11th and the 12th quite a few times, and probably should be changed back to the 12th. Winston365 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11 → September 11 (date) – The vast, vast majority of people who end up at this article are probably looking for the terrorist attacks article, not the day of the year. I propose that we move this to September 11 (date) and redirect "September 11" to the attacks article. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Google September 11 -wikipedia and everything that comes up is the terrorist attack. Kauffner (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That logic could be used to suggest December 7, July 4, 1984, or 42 be moved. (I just checked, and the 'primary topics' come up more than the general date/year does for those) I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but I would say those moves would fail overwhelmingly, especially the first two, as being (at the very least) American-centric. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Surprised it's taken 10 years for this issue to be raised, but it makes a lot of sense to rename it as proposed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Pending consideration for WP:DAYS and all the templates that point to this page and pages like it. This change would affect the consistency of the 366 date articles. If there's widespread support for this, perhaps a name change for all of the date articles will be necessary. It can be argued that this scenario would apply to December 7, July 4, etc. Is a hat note not considered sufficient due to the fact that September 11 is a date first and it just happens to be the common name for a popular event? It's a widely known event, but would it be considered such by readers from all over the world? I concede that it's probably known around the world, but is September 11 primarily known for the event around the world? I don't know the answer to that. This has been brought up in some form in the archives of this page as well as WT:DAYS. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS. I understand the spirit of this proposal but think December 7 (for Americans) or June 4 (for Chinese). Wikipedia should be a little more timeless and have a more global perspective. 9-11 and 9/11 already redirect to the attacks so the mecanographically challenged should be OK. —  AjaxSmack  00:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, absolutely not. We make no exceptions for years, I see no reason to make any exception for a date. --Golbez (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For August, September 10 got 10651 page views, September 11 got 31843, and September 12 got 9397. I think it is obvious that the vast majority of readers are here because of the attacks. Kauffner (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2011 (UmaTC)

Those numbers imply that 20k people went to 'September 11' hoping to find the attacks. This in contrast with the 491k people who went directly to the article, or the 43k who went to the 9/11 redirect. That 20k is a tiny amount in comparison - roughly 3% of the people looking for the article were inconvenienced by a second click. (interestingly, 11 September has the same ratio: roughly 3 times more visitors than the days around it. But that wouldn't mean I'd suggest it be moved) --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's ok to unnecessarily inconvenience 20,000 readers, because the article's very popular? Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to figure out if this is for convenience or to help people find the article. If it's for convenience, then yes, at most 20,000 extra clicks were performed to get to the article, but that only accounts for, at most, 3% of the people looking for the article. We tend to care more about assisting in finding things than mere convenience. I don't see an extra click being inconvenient, especially when the primary topic for "September 11" is the date - if you go there without any qualifier, you pretty much should expect to go to the date article. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To add to Kauffner's data, September 11 received significantly more hits (at least 10,000 more) on September 11th than the other days go on their respective days. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As Kauffner's stats show, the attacks are the clear primary topic for "September 11". It's been 10 years – this is not a case of recentism. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Golbez. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per AjaxSmack. If an exception was made here, wouldn't we have to redirect a lot of other pages such as July 7 to 7 July 2005 London bombings or December 25 to Christmas Day? Many dates have important events, but shouldn't these pages remain the same for disambiguation purposes? ConnorJack (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For answers to these and other questions, I refer you to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Many terms refer to more than one thing, and established procedure exists. Kauffner (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per guidelines at WP:DAYS and WP:DOY; see specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#September 11 redirect, about 5 months ago. Further discussion should be there, not here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:CONLIMITED. The consensus of one WikiProject does not over-rule site-wide guidelines and policies. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you sure you want to quote that policy? It means this discussion would be a nullity, and only a more general discussion could override the consensus at Wikipedia:Days of the year. I would refer you to WP:TITLE, noting consistency as one of the factors to consider, and that none of the five factors is primary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am sure. RM is a community-wide discussion, much like AfD, and the consensus of a local WikiProject can't over-ride that, much like an article that is concluded to be non-notable at AfD will be deleted, whether the relevant WikiProject thinks it's notable or not. Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, Wikipedia:Days of the year is a guideline, not a project; this should perhaps be brought up there first. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is done all the time. One topic is selected as primary. The secondary topics get disambiguators. Are you claiming this is against policy? Kauffner (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy. It may be against the guidelines at WP:TITLE, and, depending on the precise situation, it may require a broad consensus (say, at WP:VP) to override a narrow consensus (say, at WP:DOY), which could, in turn, override the consensus here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons as mentioned above. Pseudois (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would you also have Wikipedia change the 1984 article to "1984 (Year)" because it is largely associated with the George Orwell novel? After all, the Google defense works there as well. Friginator (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, actually. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No more than November 5 should be changed to the gunpowder plot, or July 7 to the London bombs. As awful as 9/11 was/is, there is no justification to have one date in the whole year be handled differently by wiki than every other date. MrMarmite (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Several users have talked about the slippery slope of changing July 7, June 4, etc. because of this. I don't have a whole lot of familiarity with these events, but this rationale doesn't work unless the event is most commonly referred to and known by its date. No one refers to the London bombings as simply "July 7th" in the same way that people refer to the terrorist attacks as simply "September 11th". Does that make sense? The slippery slope rationale only applies if the events at Pearl Harbor, China, London, etc. are known by their date as 9/11 is. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack, Arthur Rubin. Deor (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - In the article September 11, there is something mentioned as "This article is about the date. For the attacks in the United States, see September 11 attacks." Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:DAYS and User:MrMarmite, multiple dates have events associated to them but does not mean that event should be directed to from the date. Zarcadia (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Articles named after dates should be about the dates themselves, with no exception. Major events that happened on the dates can, of course, be covered inside the articles. However, they can never take priority over the actual date. Really, how would it look like if September 11 was about an event and each of the 364 other days in a year (365 on a leap year) was about the actual date? JIP | Talk 13:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  As I said above, there are no events that are known by their date as 9/11 is, that I know of. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • That is irrelevant to my argument. "September 11" should be about the date itself, not about the disaster, even if it were the only notable thing to ever happen on September 11. How would it look like if, for example, someone listed dates in September, and one of those links would go to an event instead of the date, with nothing in the link's text to indicate it? JIP | Talk 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, it would be confusing to treat certain dates as being about the date and others about a single event. Also, the proposal is a form of crystal-ball gazing, as it precludes any further even more significant events occurring on 11th September ever, something which we cannot control or guarantee. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not proposing that we move September 11 attacks to September 11, I'm saying September 11 should redirect to September 11 attacks with a link at the top to September 11 (date). NYyankees51 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  I know that's what you propose, and it is exactly that which I am opposing. "September 11" should be about the date, just like "September 10" or "September 12". I refuse to believe that people are so stupid that they cannot cope with an article titled for a date actually being about the date! DuncanHill (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The entire series of date articles is of the same format. Moving this would create a huge inconsistency. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The issue here is not that the events happened on September 11. The issue is that the events are often known and referred to as "September 11". Which means that, unlike other dates in the "Month day" format, a large percentage of readers will be looking for something that is not the date article. So the question is what is better for the encyclopedia and its readers: maintaining internal consistency across date articles, or allowing for an exception so that readers' expectations more closely match the article to which they are sent. It's a close question, but I think that redirecting "September 11" (and "September 11th" as well) to the article about the attacks serves readers better. Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm well aware that the incident is called "September 11". However that does not mean that the article September 11 should be about the incident. By all means have the article about the incident at September 11 (incident), September 11 (tragedy) or September 11 (disaster) for all I care. But this one particular incident, no matter how tragic it is, should not become everything there ever is to a particular date. It would look pretty stupid if September 10 and September 12 were about dates but September 11 was not, just because a terrorist attack happened on that date. 1984 isn't about the George Orwell novel either, even though the novel is known worldwide, even to people who have never read it. JIP | Talk 20:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  Why is it stupid to send the majority of readers directly to the article they want to read? Dohn joe (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  Because some things we simply have long-standing rules as to where they are. There are no exceptions for dates or years, period. Special handling for them is (or was?) built directly into the system. These types of articles should not be moved, despite many people using them for other purposes. While the attacks might be what many people are looking for, the date itself is quite plainly the primary topic. They aren't being inconvenienced by having to click another link, yet the entire date infrastructure of the site would be inconvenienced by a move. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  What makes you so sure the majority of readers want to read about the attacks? Believe or not, the attacks were not the only thing that ever happened, or will ever happen, on September 11. And besides, having one particular day break the consistency of 365 days (366 on leap years) would look incredibly stupid. JIP | Talk 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  Given the usage data posted by Kauffner above, I think it's a fair inference that at least twice as many readers a month are looking for the incident as against the date (and looking at data for other months reinforces that inference). That's a pretty solid majority of readers who are expecting to read about the incident when they type in "September 11". And I'm not sure I understand the "it will look incredibly stupid" argument. I like consistency - and in general, consistency across similar article titles does improve the experience for the reader. But not always. Wikipedia embraces inconsistency in titling all the time - when it's in the interest of the readers. Dohn joe (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed completely with Dohn joe. It is a disservice to the readers, the people who we edit for, to prevent an improvement to the encyclopedia simply for the reason that we've always done it a certain way. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  And what about those people who come to this page to see what else happened on September 11 over the years? Is it not a "disservice" to them? MrMarmite (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  We can't please everyone, but how is it logical to cater to the minority rather than the majority? Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  For one, consistency; for another, this is based entirely on unscientific access numbers that you are drawing conclusions from that may or may not be accurate. Can you please cite a policy where we move articles based entirely on analysis we make up based on access numbers? (And, here's an entertaining question, for me at least - does the number of hits on all days of the year, minus the 20,000 supposed misadventures here, total more than the hits 9/11 gets? Because if so, then we're screwing up consistency for more people than we're helping) --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this is what folks are coming here to see. - Haymaker (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  There is a link at the top of the article to the 9/11 Attacks article. If people type in September 11 and expect to find an article about the attacks they need to make one more click, hardly tricky. Are we really saying that this date should be handled differently to all other days just to prevent the user from having to make one mouse click? MrMarmite (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; this is one of those cases where the article naming criterion of "consistency" should take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME. Such cases are rare, but this is one of them. Date articles are easier to find if they are all in a consistent format. Although some readers may be looking for the attacks under this title, surely none of them should be surprised to find themselves at an article about the date? Powers ^T 13:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I still find it stupid to think that the "vast, vast majority of people will be looking for the attacks instead of the date". People going to September 10 or September 12 will be looking for the dates. July 4 is about the date, not about the American Declaration of Independence, even though the event is known across the USA as "July 4". November 5 is about the date, not about the British Gunpowder Plot, even though the event is known across the UK, and mentioned in "Remember the fifth of November". 1984 is about the year, not about the novel, even though it is known across the entire world. And lastly, the attacks were not the only notable thing to ever happen on September 11. JIP | Talk 19:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  We need to be more precise here. Your quote is "Remember the fifth of November", not "Remember November 5", right?. Notice that Fifth of November takes you to Guy Fawkes Day. Likewise, Fourth of July takes you to the article on Independence Day. That's because that's what those days are actually called. Here, people actually call the incident "September 11". You may think it's "stupid", but the statistics show that we have a title which leads to around 70% of readers to the "wrong" article, which I think is strong evidence in favor of moving the title. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and readers will be inconvenienced either way. But isn't it better to reduce the inconvenience when we can? Dohn joe (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  The attacks are also actually called 9/11, and that redirect exists. And no, it doesn't lead 70% of readers astray - the figure was 3%. 70% of the people coming here are apparently either looking for 9/11 or interested in finding out what else happened that day (something you have no way of knowing), but that 70% makes up only 3%, at best, of the people actually looking for the article on 9/11. I would have to say the inconvenience caused by breaking a decade of consistency wrt date articles is far more than remedying the inconvenience of, at most, 20,000 extra clicks over a period of five weeks. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  Here's how I can be fairly sure about the numbers. I took a look (and broke out the calculator), and over the period from January through August of this year, September 10 was viewed an average of 5,284 times per month. September 12 was viewed an average of 5,307 times. September 11 was viewed an average of 25,973 times. A fair extrapolation would be that about 5,300 of those views were for all the various things that happened on the date, leaving over 20,000 views for the incident. That means it's likely that 75-80% of the readers of this page are being taken to the wrong page. I agree that a small percentage of people who are looking for the incident will be affected. Would you agree that a large percentage of people who go to September 11 are in fact being led astray? Dohn joe (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sure some are, though we can't be sure. A number could be coming to the article just to see what else happened on this day. I maintain my position that changing how things have been done for a decade, and break a fundamental consistency of the site, to convenience 20,000 clicks a month. (And, what of the ones who were here not for 9/11, but for the Chilean coup?) It's not that important. --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  Comment Dohn, I am afraid you logic is at fault here. Just because September 11 has a much higher number of visitors cannot be claimed as proof that those visitors were trying to read about the attacks. It could be just as easily be argued that this large number is due to people wanting to know what else happened on that day. It is not at all surprising that far more people would be interested in September 11 than September 12. I, for instance, came to this page to see if there were any other significant events on that date. MrMarmite (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am definitely a proponent of consietency across the day articles, but I also see the need to exercise common sense. If readers are looking for the tragedy, let's make it as easy as possible for them.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Don't we need to be mindful of special MediaWiki software stuff? Aren't dates treated specially within the MediaWiki world? What happens with date auto-formatting if September 11 (the date page) is now located at September 11 (date)? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:38, 14 September 20ee11 (UTC)

If it turns out to be a problem, we can always change it back. If the title was changed now, it would be a whole year before any issue of this kind arose. Kauffner (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why a whole year? Doesn't it affect the way date links work? Wouldn't that affect a link to September 11 today? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this question can be struck – I don't think it applies. Swayback Maru ^{Mufka's alternate account (talk)} 14:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The hatnote suffices to help the reader get there after one more click. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS, and July 4, and 1492, everything everyone above has written. This too shall pass. The date will remain. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• See above from Dohn joe, "Notice that Fifth of November takes you to Guy Fawkes Day. Likewise, Fourth of July takes you to the article on Independence Day. That's because that's what those days are actually called. Here, people actually call the incident 'September 11'. You may think it's 'stupid', but the statistics show that we have a title which leads to around 70% of readers to the 'wrong' article, which I think is strong evidence in favor of moving the title. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and readers will be inconvenienced either way. But isn't it better to reduce the inconvenience when we can?" NYyankees51 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• And "9/11" takes you to the article on the attacks. You seem to be saying that no one ever refers to Independence Day as "July 4". --Golbez (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• We should certainly reduce inconvenience, when we can do so without compromising our fundamental principles. This proposed change would do that. Recentism and bias are just another way of saying that it would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Are you really saying that proportionately, when published reliable sources write "September 11" they mean the attacks? Surely not. On the day, or even the week, of the tenth anniversary of the attacks, and in the United States, maybe. But not the rest of the year, or in other countries, or, for that matter, all the media that were published more than 10 years ago. In total: not a chance. --GRuban (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The date is more than a single event that happened in one country on a single day, no matter how terrible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This is one of the few (and possibly only) dates that is more connected with an event than an actual date. The attacks were not just a shock to the US, but to the entire world, and the average person will want to see the attack page, not the date page. Further, this is not recentism - the attacks were ten years ago. Toa Nidhiki05 23:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Lots of things have happened on this date through the ages and I am against conflating the date with the terrorist attack ten years ago. --John (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the "month day_num" format should be exclusively for a list of what happened on that day in history, there will always be a given event that a given day is more closely associated with but there is no reason make this an exception. Mtking ^(edits) 02:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Golbez. If an alien spaceship landed next to the Eiffel Tower...maybe that date could be the exception to current policy. 9/11 is a significant date, but not that significant. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per precedent, all dates in this format link to the actual day. 9/11 already links to the attacks, so does 9-11; both are more common in written form than September 11, which is the common spoken form. Furthermore, September 11 attacks is already prominently linked at the very top of the page under debate. N419BH 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is a large number of alternative articles about events that happened on that day in other years. The link on September 11 is easy to find, and most would look for 9/11 anyway.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

*Mild oppose and question - while I agree that most people typing 'September 11' into Wikipedia are aiming to get to the terrorist attack article, I am also a proponent of consistency throughout the dating articles. I must ask, though, are there any examples of dates on Wikipedia that lead to anything other than a date article? That is, could I type in the date of a significant event and end up at the event's article rather than the date? If any are presented, I may consider altering my opinion. – Richard BB 02:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• • No, there are no other such dates. Anyway, this proposal has already been resolved. JIP | Talk 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Oops, now I feel foolish! Apologies. – Richard BB 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)