Template talk:9-11 hijackers

Alleged

Please provide support for the notion that these are "alleged" hijackers -- all of the mainstream media reports describes these people as the hijackers. There's nothing "alleged" about it. Morton devonshire 22:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no trial, and the "mainstream" media has often reported that between 1-7 of the hijacker names are still alive, that identities could have easily been stolen, even Porter Goss and others have said (pp) "There is no way we can be certain that these were not stolen identities", so it's "alleged" until somebody proves otherwise. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrongly accused

Erroneously Accused would be less pov. 'Wrongly accused' in US speech generally connotes a deliberate slanderous or libelous attack actionable by lawsuit against the accuser.

On the above point, in US practice, all accused are alleged until they are convicted unless dead... which should apply in this case to quite a few. Best regards // FrankB 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

revised

Sorry, I read too quickly entering the section edit. Alleged is fine if the facts are in question per the quote. Still, if there is no question on the others, you should be differentiating. OTOH, if these are the same names the press is calling the hi-jackers, and regardless of whether there is a question as to their true identities, THAT belongs in the article, and need not necessarily be in the template at all... the articles should be the arbitor of the point regardless of which label is chosen. 'Alleged' is likely to draw fire from families of victims, whereas I haven't heard anything about families and persons having their identity stolen have made complaints. Balanced so, I'd go with whatever minimizes space the best. FrankB 03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I'd rather a word a little more straight-forward than "Erroneously", and "Wrongly Accused" to me brings forward memories of the likes of David Milgaard, convicted through mismanagement or incompetence, but not malice. Is the problem lie perhaps with the "accused", not the "wrongly"? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I follow your 'accused' point, post edit-conflict. Officials acting in good faith can be coloquially 'wrong' but not acting wrongfully— such are 'honest errors' as we all make in day to day life. 'Wrongful accusation' would require some sort of malfeasance or incompetance which of course includes deliberate attempts to nab and charge anyone. Or so I understand. If you want to pin it down legally, I know at least two lawyer admins who would render an better informed opinion. I'm merely a greying engineer with wide tastes in historical reading! Say the word, and I'll see what they say. FrankB 03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your David Milgaard example involves deliberate falsehood... a wrongful act. My objection stands on it's merit, which is to say wrongful has a specific meaning in Law, differentiated from coloquial speech. FrankB 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like "Alleged 9/11 Hijackers" and "Wrongly Accused", but if you want to ask the lawyer-users for their opinions, that's fine too. btw, wrongly/wrongfully, is one of those better than the other? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed "reported" from the title. Is there some reason why "reported" was there? Why not just "9/11 Hijackers"?--Jersey Devil 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

20th hijacker, link non-functional

The group title is coded as "20th hijacker suspects", however this link does not appear when implemented (i.e. on the page 20th hijacker). I do not know how to fix this. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)