Category talk:Victims of the September 11 attacks

Why so few?

Something should be done so that each victim has his own Wikipedia page. In my view, every one is notable and each warrants in article.--Mantanmoreland 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a big debate about whether victims should have articles. Aside from the fact that they are victims, are they notable? If so, then there could be an article. If not, articles were moved to sep11.wikipedia.org. See Wikipedia:9/11 victims for discussion. Though, there is now talk of closing the sep11 wiki. Personally, I don't see the harm in having articles (out of 1 million+ articles), since Wikipedia is not paper. Of course, they would need to meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, citing reputable sources, WP:NPOV, etc. The broad disagreement is over notability. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? I was not aware of that discussion. I shall take a look at it. You're right -- this is not a paper product, and I surely see nothing wrong with having an article on each victim. I shall see what others think.--Mantanmoreland 16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK -- I took a look. I see that this is a rather old issue that was settled two years ago. Still, I wonder if the subject needs to be revisited. What do you think?--Mantanmoreland 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's possibly that consensus has shifted since then. I'm not sure enough, though. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond R. York. That article was created by User:York899, who I only assume is a family member. Many people voted to transwiki the article to the sep11wiki, which as I mentioned might be closed. Closing the wiki might cause a change of consensus on this issue. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if maybe, given that this is the fifth anniversary and with release of that movie, it could be revisited. Have you seen the movie? It is like being transported back in time. I think a lot of people are going to come to Wiki for background info.--Mantanmoreland 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think that many people would look to Wikipedia for such information. I know the WTC film focuses on the two Port Authority police officers, but does the film make any significant references to other victims? If so, that might make them more notable and give people a specific reason to look up information on Wikipedia. I haven't seen the film yet, and would only do so to know about any myths being put out there by the film (though, sounds like the director sticks to the facts). --Aude (talk contribs) 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the film only mentions the two PA police officers and their rescuers, with two other deceased officers mentioned in passing. However I think that the anniversary, and the attendant publicity, will revive this issue again. Certainly did for me. I read through the comments and see that there seem to be good reasons for not having an article for every victim. One that wasn't mentioned, I think, is that such articles would necessarily contain original research. One that was mentioned is that there have been many other attacks since 9-11. So I see merit on both sides here.

Re the movie--it appears to stick closely to the facts. One interesting anomaly is that one of the two Marine rescuers, according to the article on that person, was incorrectly portrayed as white when he was actually black.--Mantanmoreland 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there also is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Ogonowski, which resulted in a "keep". I've noticed a few other articles appearing. I think the best thing to do is just keep watch on the category and help ensure policies are adhered to. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I shall. Thanks. By the way, reading through the Wiki article on the movie and this Slate magazine piece, the movie was indeed fictionalized. The John McLoughlin article seems to have lifted erroneous details from the movie, so I fixed. (Putting aside factual issues, I should point out, it is an excellent, excellent movie.)--Mantanmoreland 20:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

]

Richard Guadagno

Text from this article is copied straight from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm

Sentences like "Richard would have been one of the ones to intervene," said Dave Paullin, his supervisor at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Guadagno, who spent 17 years with the agency, was a wiry 5-foot-8 dynamo - "in a word, intense," Paullin said - who wanted to be outdoors. aren't really suitable for an encyclopedia. Not to mention that the text is copyrighted to USATODAY.com. Maybe someone could take a look at it - I'm not sure I'm the right person to start tearing through articles of september 11 victims. -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the firefighters were terrorism victims

I have been working on the subject of the 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. In connection with that terrorist attack one death stands out, namely that of the Czech Ambassador, Ivo Žďárek, who escaped the attack, was safe on the outside, and then went back into the hotel where he subsequently was unable to get out and then died in the blaze that had been started by the bomb blast. Since he voluntarily returned to the burning building, I removed categories from his article classifying him as a terrorism victim. However, I was reverted, and the editor who reverted me did in fact cite the American firefighters who perished in the World Trade Center on 9/11. For consistency I let the issue go at the time, however, I have pondered upon it since and I cannot help envisioning some strange consequences in related situations if we simply leave the issue at the current level of reasoning as a precedent for other incidents, terrorism or otherwise.

When it comes to the American firefighters on 9/11, it is my assumption that most people who consider these terrorist victims either haven't thought through the principles behind this classification, or they believe the buildings to have been intentionally demolished, thus making their collapse a terrorist act in and of itself.

What it all boils down to is whether people who arrive in the aftermath of a terrorist attack and voluntarily expose themselves to the dangers of such an environment, and who succumb as a consequence of these hazards, can rightly be rubricized as terrorism victims? __meco (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that loses their life due to a terrorist attack is in fact a victom of that terrorist attack

How could it be argued? If a life is lost due to the actions of a terroirst attack, they are a victom of it. Wheather they voluntarily put onself in the front line danger or not. Also the firefighters who lost their lives on 9/11 werent completly voluntary. It was their job. They are licensed proffessionals trainned for various emergencies including a uilding on fire not matter the cause. I find it disrespectful to render those catergories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.137.230.33 (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Iran link

Category:People killed in Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) operations has been removed from this category.

The ruling by judge George B. Daniels does not constitute proof of any link. The nation of Iran did not participate in the trial, and so the judge made a decision based on Iran's failure to provide exculpatory evidence. Without proof of innocence, the judge pronounced them guilty.

The official 9/11 commission did not find any evidence that Iran was involved.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/u-s-judge-orders-iran-pay-10-billion-fine-didnt-prove-wasnt-behind-911-attacks/214672/

https://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-ordered-pay-billions-relatives-911-victims/story?id=54862664

One Salient Oversight (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)