This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This category is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
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.--
Mantanmoreland16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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 (
talkcontribs)
16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Mantanmoreland16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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?--
Mantanmoreland16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Mantanmoreland18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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 (
talkcontribs)
18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Mantanmoreland19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.)--
Mantanmoreland20:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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. -
GilbertoSilvaFan23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.