Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Discussion at sep11wiki

This is the former sep11:September 11:General discussion page, imported here for historical reasons.


This page is the ideal place to get help, report bugs or discuss the memorial wiki. Please add new discussion to the bottom, by clicking the edit page link.

This wiki is UTF-8 encoded.

You can link here from the english 'pedia or meta wikis via [[sep11:Page title]].

It is possible to #redirect across wikis. However, moving entire pages intact from one wiki to another including edit histories is not yet possible.

Oldest discussion

edit

Why is it necessary to be so specific and therefore exclusionary? If Wikipedia is going to host a 9/11 wiki then to be fair there should also be a wiki for each and every other unjust event that killed many people. But having so many wikis is madness! How about this:

Have this wiki's main url be http://memorial.wikipedia.org and have http://sep11.wikipedia.org be a url redirect directly to the September 11th In Memoriam page. To avoid the problem with naming conflicts between different memorials we could have a naming convention that each individual tribute page be in a namespace (example; sep11:namespace or bali2002:namespace). --mav

Is there some reason why the main page is laid out as it is? Even on 1152*864 resolution (with large font) it doesn't display without horizinatal scrolling. - Horrible. -- SGBailey

If you're seeing the same page I am, then yes, there is a reason: the gray boxes with text in them suggest the World Trade Center towers. - 24.27.33.5 02:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What browser, what version, what operating system? Table layouts are fragile in that some browsers are extremely sensitive. --Brion VIBBER
I get the same problem. I'm using Windows ME, IE version 6.0.2800.1106IS --Martin/MyReddice
I reduced the table width to 70%, which fixed it.

[1] - someone is asking to have some pages moved to here - is that possible? --Martin/MyRedDice

As a feature request, could we get rid of links to "Talk" pages? It would make sense to have discussion on the actual article, since we don't need to work so hard to maintain NPOV or fact MyRedDice

Oh, and you could lose the "minor edit" button as well, since it's not really appropriate.

Moved from en:Wikipedia:Village pump

Cross-wiki redirects

edit

A simple question. There are certain people, such as Stephen Huczko, who used to have an article on wikipedia, and that article has been moved to the sep11.wiki. I believe that such articles should redirect to the en:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Casualties page. The Cunctator thinks they should redirect to the relevant sep11.wiki page. I dislike cross-wiki redirects, and wondered what the general opinion was on their use. Of course, if there's an appropriate FAQ on the subject, please direct me to it. Thanks! :) Martin

IIRC cross wiki redirects were made for exactly this reason. If the wikipedia tribute pages are made into orphan redirects to the sep11 wiki there should not be a problem. --mav

The problem is that if a page does an inter-wiki redirect then you don't get the "redirected from" link that allows you to remove the redirect, and "What links here" doesn't work across wikis. It can be done, but you need to hack the URL, which is a rather cludgy solution, IMO. Is there a tool/utility page for finding links to pages that redirect off wikipedia? Martin

Is there a reason why the links listed in the "In Memoriam" group at the bottom of the page go to en.wikipedia.org? There's a separate section below that for "Wikipedia entries", and the ones in "In Memoriam" really sound like they belong in this collection of articles. RossPatterson 03:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Memorial Wiki

edit

Problems with the memorial wiki. If someone can give me relevant powers and/or advice on how to solve these myself, that'd be great. Otherwise, I throw myself at the mercy of the technical folks.

  • One cannot search or use the go button, as MySQL returned error "1191: Can't find FULLTEXT index matching the column list".
  • The side links include a "main page" and "current events" and "bug reports" pages. These need to be replaced with "in memoriam", perhaps some other pages.
  • The Help and About link on each page is bust. We probably just need one of these links for now.
  • Special:Upload has dead links
  • Link as GNU Free Documentation License on each page is broken
  • Discuss this page is unnecessary on a memorial wiki
  • minor edit is currently unnecessary


  • Each page says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" - it should say something more appropriate ("From the memorial wiki", etc)
  • the logo says Wikipedia... again, it should say something more appropriate
I've fixed the search problem. As far as broken links, fill them in! Where appropriate, copy or link the pages off of this wiki. --Brion 00:04 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I can certainly fill in some info for some of the links I mentioned, but for others the links themselves should be removed. I guess I can add temporary redirects, though, for the time being. Thanks for fixing the search problem :) Martin


(End of moved text)

Does the word nationalism mean anything to you? WikiUser: Sigg3.net

I found these on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/OnThisDay?day=11&month=September&year=2001 (you can add 3 of them that qualify)

...and then there was a bunch that died in Afghanistan too: http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/index.html

...and btw, does Augusto Pinochet's USA-backed slaughter on September 11 (1973) qualify for this september 11-wiki site?


I have quite strong opinions on most issues political. However, I do my best not to let these shine through whenever I write articles for collective use, like on Wikipedia. Indeed Wikipedia expects a neutral point of view from its editors.

How do I combine that with the fact that the link "september 11 memorial" has just appeared on the fornt page of our (Frysian) wikipedia?

In general, if we feel it's worth collecting more resources than we use in the articles, for fear of them being lost, then we could have resources - pages, or a resources wikipedia, or a separate resources wiki. If most of these will be either official documents or personal accounts, that's OK, since it would be a good way to make these accessible. (But if these accounts are coloured, it should not be associated with the Wikipdia, whose point of view should always be a neutral one.)

But I see no reason to move one single event, however horrible, to the front so much that it needs a wikipedia of its own with equal treatment to the language wikipediae. And I expect that most who have lived through WW II would not see that reason either. (Not to mention all the other demonstrations of how easy it is to kill people. (See, that's what I do not write for public consumption.)

So, even if this runs on the same hardware, and is created by some of the same people, can we please keep this as a (virtually) independent Wiki(pedia), not listed prominently in the main project, until there's consensus on its purpose, structure, language, and name? 

                                  Blue Peter 23:08, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think the same way than Blue Peter. In fact, I'm not sure I still sympathize with the USA, after all the americans have inflicted to the world lately, in Irak, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I only hope that the current US madness don't kill us all. Traroth, 10/22/2003

Paul Innella is protected, so I was not able to place information onto that page. I placed that information (which was found in wikipedia-proper) in the TALK section of that page. Please copy it into the page. Kingturtle 01:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikimorial

edit

Everybody involved in this project should visit meta:Wikimorial and comment. In short; "Wikimorial" is a proposal for a change of focus of this project to include all dead people so that this wiki can be used by genealogy buffs and for writing NPOV-like articles about people who died in various events (pure eulogizing would be welcome on talk pages, however). --Maveric149 04:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Missing from Rescue 1 roster

edit

The following member is omitted from the names listed in roster of the deaths of Rescue Co. 1 members:

Firefighter Michael Moutesi

Can someone here move en:Levy Quinn to the 9-11 Wikipedia? -- user:Zanimum

The 9/11 Wikipedia

edit

Why does there have to be a separate Wikipedia for 9/11???? It should include all other such events. It's disgusting. Just reinforces the typical USA government attitude "if non-Westerners die, that doesn't matter--they're just uneducated freaks. If Westerners die, the murderers are really going to pay for this. We're going to kill them and anyone like them." See Acts of the Democracies for ideas...

Wikipedia may have been started by Americans but it is not run by the American Government. If people involved in setting up wikipedia wish to make a memorial to the victims of this act, let them. They/ the community have kindly made available the wiki software so anyone is free to set up their own site for any other memorial. Human society does not progres by ignoring its tragedies; nor does it progress by hearking back to every greater injustice since the Pharoahs in a game of 'who's suffered most'.Dooley 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There doesn't have to be an own Wikipedia for 09/11. It could be a Wikipedia project. Otherwise - where is the Wikipedia for WWII? Where is the Wikipedia for Pearl Harbor? Where the Wikipedia for the Holocaust? The idea to make own Wikipedia subdomains for single events is absurd! --213.198.65.111 01:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree as well... why don't make a wikipedia for the 11.000-13.000 civilian people who died in Iraq during this war?
Disagree. Keep your political views out of the memorial, for fuck's sake.
User:213.19... 17,714 europeans to one american? 2000 Jews to one American? With whom are you agreeing exactly?
"keep your political views out", on a site dedicated to a politically-oriented event? This memorial is 99% useless. The useful stuff here should be part of the regular wikipedia. Get over yourself. People die everyday. Yes, the WTC attack was a sad thing. So was WWII, but you don't see books with biographies for every person who died back then. Creating an entire Wikipedia just for that is stupid and a waste of time. The only thing special about the victims is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's funny to me that a nation bent on preserving good morals like the 'sanctity of marriage' would commercialize and cheapen a thing like mourning for the dead into mass hysteria.
I agree - If this is to exist it must be made a general memorial for all tragedies, not just one event.

---

"We are a peaceful nation... "

An incredible assertion suggesting its opposite.

Allpages?

edit

Is there any way Special:Allpages could be turned on for this site? At only 202 pages it shouldn't hog too much CPU. Anthony DiPierro


Special:Allpages is turned on and was last updated on 22 April. Jamesday 03:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I just didn't realize that link was a link to the list, not to the individual page. Anthony DiPierro 09:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for adminship

edit

Can I be an admin here? Anthony DiPierro

Hijacker(s)

edit

I don't think Ahmed Alghamdi should have a page. Everyking 01:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I definitely think there should be a page on the hijackers in general, if not one for each. But maybe I'm looking at this site in a different way than you. I think a complete tribute to the people who died in the incident should include some background on the incident itself. The difficulty in doing this is in the point of view, however, which I believe should be sympathetic to the victims while remaining based in fact (with exceptions for tributes marked as such and preferably signed). I'm thinking "what would a print edition look like?" and I think information on Ahmed Alghamdi would definitely be included, not in a "tributes" section, but in a "hijackers" section. Anthony DiPierro (comment is a work in progress and subject to change)

Well, all the hijackers should have articles in Wikipedia, but this is a tribute site. Having an article for him here makes it appear we are counting him as a victim to be mourned. I think the scope of this site should remain relatively limited; we don't need to include all kinds of information about 9/11 and those involved in it if that information is better suited to the main project. Everyking 19:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not a generic tribute site - it's a site about the 11 September attacks and related things. Articles on the hijackers, the consequences and the hunt for those involved are all on topic here. Off topic are articles unrelated to those attacks and their consequences. Regrettably, detailed information about the attacks and related events is deleted from the English language Wikipedia - this project a place where it might acutally survive. Some people want a site for general memorials. I don't see a lot of point in placing it in this wiki, which has a different focus. Jamesday 09:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote for inclusion as a hijackers page. Dooley 02:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the hijackers should be listed at all - they aren't even definitely _the_ hijackers

Pages which need to have historical author information moved from Wikipedia

edit

Protected pages

edit

Some conventions, perhaps?

edit

I think we need some general conventions similar to those on en wiki, such as:

  • Bold article names, i.e. the name of the person in his/her article
  • Link to en articles whenever it would be relevant, such as en:Beverly Hills, California

I can't see the link in the beginning that is entered as [[en:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack|September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]] . It isn't displayed with the default skin on Opera 7.50. I don't know what "en:" means and whether it should be left.

edit

The logo could do with being made transparent in order to intergrate better into the new interface.

Editing policies

edit

As a Wikipedia project, I assume most of the same policies/principles apply to editing the articles, namely that anyone can do so freely. My question is, what is to be done with informative yet very personal articles like Joanne Ahladiotis? Much of it is of a factual nature, yet it's clearly from one person's perspective and is signed below an emotional closing. I felt awkward linking stuff in it (I first came upon the article at Wikipedia:Pages without wikilinks) and fixing the mistakes I came across, so I didn't save any of my changes. - dcljr 02:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mixed items are fine, though there have at times been suggestions to put them on talk pages instead of at articles. You might consider a section for the neutral items first, followed by the personal tributes and comments. Jamesday 09:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikimorial, Wikipeople, revisited

edit

On the subject of setting up a wiki for memorials, genealogies, and family trees: wikipeople seems to be more in vogue now than wikimorial was (see above). How do people feel about migrating personal and family content from this wiki to such a wiki? Of course information about planes, organizations, terrorism, and the attacks themselves would not belong on such a project; but it might help to clarify what this project is about. Sj 02:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (see Wikimorial for more).

The sep11 wiki is a contradiction in terms

edit

"The aim of the Wikipedia encyclopedia itself, in response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack is the inclusion of a neutral and complete history of the attack" and "Welcome to In Memoriam: September 11, 2001, a sister project of Wikipedia."

The words 'neutral' and 'memoriam' have a very difficult time coexisting in the same state. This wiki is obviously not neutral concerning the attacks, as it is seeing it from an in memoriam POV. This is a contradiction in terms.

I do not sympathize with the terrorists, but let's be honest, a NPOV on the subject would point out the fact that American's value life just as the islamic fundamentalists value death, and it wouldn't hold one value higher than another. In addition to that, lot's of people die all the time. Why don't we have hiroshimia and nagasaki wikis, or WWII wikis, or ...that list could really go on. I read Jimbo's comment about it attracting publicity. Is publicity worth a breach in our philosophy? A book comes to mind which explains much of Americas history from the point of view of those who were getting stepped on, entitled "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn; ISBN 0-06-052837-0 --Alterego 23:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The memorials are different from the coverage of the events.It's to be expected that family members would remember their deceased relatives with credit. But this place isn't just a collection of memorials. It's about the whole thing and its consequences. Does seem to be too much emphasis on the memorials in many minds, though, perhaps because much of the material initially placed here was a result of people who wanted to delete the biographies of the victims from the encyclopedia. I'll be happy to see specific works about WW II and its consequences, Nagasaki and Hiroshima and their consequnces and so on. Like September 11th, those are major events and there's a tremendous amount to be written about them. The Wikipedia long ago ended any realistic attempt to provide a complete history of the attack, or its consequences, as the coverage has been trimmed steadily of interesting and useful detail on the basis of it being too much or not appropriate there. This place can provide that complete coverage. The attacks weren't limited to victims who were United States citizens. They also killed more British citizens than any other single terrorist action. It was the steady removal of the detailed coverage from the encyclopedia which prompted my own interest in this place.
I do see what you mean about the memorials - the home page going directly to memorials instead of more rounded coverage may not be a good idea, since it does place the emphasis mostly on that rather than the broader project. Jamesday 22:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Completely unnecessary

edit

I don't see any information on this wiki that couldn't fit / isn't already present in the encyclopedia. The very existence of a separate memorial page for the WTC attack violates the Wiki's NPOV policy, by seemingly placing a higher importance of this event over other happenings considered by many to be tragedies.

~ booyabazooka

I came to this discussion to state the same. Although know that what happened was not right and I feel deep sympathy with relatives of victims, having a separate sister project for this event seems to me a particular kind of chauvinism. If the project doesn't get closed, I'll open another one about Jewish victims in the Auschwitz and one about the Ruandan genocide. --193.77.242.226 13:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC) en:User:Eleassar777[reply]

Having a separate wiki for 9/11 is absurd

edit

I just stumbled upon this aberration today. Is it part of Wikipedia or not? The logo says Wikipedia, the domain name says Wikipedia, but none of the normal rules apply. It's like Bizarroworld Wikipedia. This should definitely be moved off to some other site that is more appropriate and not associated with Wikipedia. 209.149.56.231 00:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The logo will hopefully not remain wikipedia - see belowDooley 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed part of Wikipedia, it's just that it's a strange historical anomaly that was formed as a dumping ground for articles that kept popping up on people who died in the attacks. By hiving these pages off into a seperate wiki NPOV could be declared not to apply, so that families could write their personal tributes and that kind of thing. Bizarroworld Wikipedia sums it up very well I think. It appears that nothing goes on here any more (and hasn't for a long time) except some vandalism now and then. Nearly every time I've seen the subject come up in discussions most people have taken a very negative view of this wiki, which I share. I'm not aware of any indication from the the board of what is intended to happen to this (though they are not always the best at communicating their decisions to the community, to put it mildly). Since there is only one slightly active user here, stopping by now and again to fix the vandalism, perhaps if she passes by she could enlighten us about what the plan is for this wiki. IMHO it should at the very least be locked to stop the vandals, as no new content is ever added and there is in no way a community (see the section in meta:New project policy on closing inactive projects, of which this is surely one). This would still leave us with the problem of hosting an aberrant POV section of Wikipedia though, for one particular incident singled out for some dubious political purposes. I've never seen any decent justification for its existence and if the board is looking for opinions, well I vote to shut it down entirely. Perhaps we could give someone the database dump so they could turn it into a static site, or even get it going as a proper wiki again. It's all GFDL after all. It's really very odd that this is still hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and worse still that it's labelled as a part of Wikipedia. Trilobite 02:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties transwiki

edit

There does not appear to be a link to Transwiki:Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks anywhere on the main page, but an old link to a redirect to the (now VFD'd) English wikipedia page remains on the bottom. Could this be changed? 213.78.200.12 11:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main page appears to be protected. I agree this needs to be changed. That link was out of date anyway, pointing to a subpage (they no longer exist in the main namespace of enwiki). Trilobite 13:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The transwiki page appears to be a copyright infringment (incomplete history, just a dump of the plain text of a history page without the real history of the changes to the article or author links etc.), so that can't be used either. I'll delete it as a copyright infringment later, unless it shows up with a real history in the meantime. Jamesday 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I would like to propose replacing the logo for this wiki. The current logo is the old Wikipedia logo. This is not an appropriate logo for several reasons:

  1. This wiki is not part of the Wikipedia project, but rather a separate project with completely different goals and policies. Using the Wikipedia logo here is confusing and misleading.
  2. The logo is outdated. It doesn't look especially attractive and it doesn't have any transparency, making it look awkward on top of the graphical background.
  3. The memorial wiki should have its own distict logo just like every other seperate wiki project.

Although I'm not much of a graphical designer, I've created a new logo that can be used for this purpose, unless someone wants to come up with a better version. To acknowledge the wiki's origin as a spin-off of Wikipedia, it still incorporates the Wikipedia logo, but as a background element:

Kaldari 20:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Even if it's not perfect, it's certainly better than the one being used now. --66.168.50.185 03:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the design suggested. This is not only a memorial project. It's the September 11th wiki, about all events and consequences, not just about those who died. A new logo would be interesting if it reflected the broader objectives of this project, though. Unfortunately it's not possible to have different logos for different parts of a project. Jamesday 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Dooley 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia favicon

edit

I would also like to propose that this wiki stop using the Wikipedia favicon, as the favicon has the effect of branding these pages as official Wikipedia articles, which they are not. This is especially confusing when using tabbed browsing, as they appear to be identitcal to Wikipedia pages. Unless someone would like to come up with an original favicon for this wiki, I would suggest using no favicon at all. Kaldari 20:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just my thoughts

edit

I think this wiki should be locked, and request for content should be put on special or talk pages. The broken links to en.wikipedia.org should definitely be fixed. The logo is mixed. The sphere is spot on. The text is terrible, too blue and off topic. It should be subdued and say "9-11 Wiki" or something to that effect, maybe with a descriptive subheading.

I agree, there's broken links and the Donations link, despite not being functional, really doesn't seem appropriate for an "in memoriam" site. --66.168.50.185 03:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually it should have a list of all the casualties.

As you might have guessed I don't really like this wiki in its current form, but it's just an opinion. en:User:JamesHoadley 03:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. This wiki must be the most useless thing ever to exist. Everyone knows many americans died on that very day, but nobody really gives a shit any more. I mean, that was over four years ago now. Move on and stop mourning for condolences, you hypocrites.

Reply from a heartbroken American: Are you saying these people died without cause? These men must be remembered. Should we forget the horrible losses we suffered? Or think, our army and government could get really strong after this. And what do you mean by "you hypocrites"? Some sure as hell have forgotten about them, BUT I HAVEN'T! George Bush is doing a damn fine job. We are so damn close to finding all the terrorists responsible. Osama Bin Fucker is going to die if he hasn't already. But you probably aren't reading this nor will you ever find out because YOU, my friend, ARE LIKE THE MICHAEL MOORE! I just came here to browse and I find hypocrites on the web. Un-American swine. You are supporting terrorism by forgetting these poor men and women. You are a "hypocrite" when you forget. I'm sorry but I remember. I was only 11 years old when the 9/11 happened.

Of course these people died without a cause. Did they go to the WTC etc thinking "today I will be a casualty". The only people dying with a cause was the hijackers, yet they don't even have their own pages! Sure, 10000+ people died. What about the Tokyo firebombing, WWII- 100000ish deaths. People die every day. In fact, on average, there are that many deaths/day. And just because you were 11 at the time, doesn't mean you can't move on already. I was 8, and I've moved on. Why can't you? And btw, we'll never find the terrorists, they were incinerated.

Then I suggest you leave it to the adults, hmm? There's nothing wrong with wanting to create memorials. It's not about moving on. Perhaps in 50 years 9/11 will not be all that important, but right now, it still looms large on the national and even international conciousness. You can't divorce yourself from history. 169.233.20.230 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

edit

"THIS WIKIPEDIA SUBDOMAIN HAS TO BE DIABLED IMMEDIATELY! ..." Surely this isn't part of the actual discussion happening here (e.g. users stopped in the middle of their thoughts and started typing "THIS WIKIPEDIA SUBDOMAIN..."), so I think this page needs some cleaning up. I hesitate to do it, however, without getting consent from someone else. I did clean up this vandalism on the main page however. --66.168.50.185 03:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not

edit

From en:WP:NOT - "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them."

I think it's fine if someone wants to start a 9/11 memorial wiki, but why does it have to be called Wikipedia???

This project has been nominated for deletion

edit

This project is being considered for deletion.
Please discuss the matter at this projects entry on the Wikipedia Miscellany for Deletion page.

However it was reprieved. I assume. en:User:Rich Farmbrough 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose en wikipedia could vote to delete fr wikipedia but I doubt that it would cause fr wikipedia to be deleted. Votes on en just aren't relevant here because this isn't part of en. Jamesday 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a check shows that the discussion was aborted because this isn't en wikipedia but a different project - which is also why the reasons given for wanting it deleted don't apply - they had the basis that this was part of en and wasn't following with en practices. Jamesday 23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the 9/11 events should be more impportant than others?!?!?!

edit

I don't really speak english well so you're gonna have to translate!:

Je suis vraiment, mais vraiment, tanné que vous, les foutus amériacains patriotiques, vennés tout le temps nous faire chier avec votre 11 serptembre 2001 de merde. Il y a eu des évenement 100000 fois pire que cela, et aucun n'a un mémorial affilié a wikipedia!!! Et pourquoi?! Parceque cela n'a juste pa sa place! Cette page est juste un rammassi de propagande douteuse et non objective. Je vous méprise au plus profond de mon âme car vous vous borné à imposer votre vision (comme toulours)dramatique et fataliste de cet évenement au reste du monde quand, en fait, tout le monde s'en fou... Vous ne faites qu'allimenté la haine du monde envers vous... Cessé de vivre dans le passé et de nourrir votre population d'une haine xénophobique envers le moyen orient en vous servant du 11 setptembre...Dites vous que chaque jour vous faite pire partout dans le monde, votre président se sert de l'armée comme de son bras pour assouvir sa ridicule soif de vengance. Et surtout rappelez-vous que la majorité du monde vous déteste, vous et votre ignorance.

  • I do agree with your point, remember that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are Americans and it shows by way of bias in many controversial articles. However, your little rant is hardly objective either. 216.98.57.65 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this creation was precisely to avoid 9/11 data unbalancing the en wikipedia. The same may be true of wikispecies adn some other projects. The drawback is that this then becomes a way of chucking out content on the basis that it "belongs" to another project. Discussions have been had about winding this project up, which make sense in one way, but not in another. Amazingly we still don't have definitive biographies for all victims - very hard to belive considering the amount that has been written about 9/11. Rich Farmbrough
9/11 happened to Americans so it is far far more tragic than anything else that has ever happened. Also it was a total shock. Atleast the Jews of Germany knew they were going to be sent off to death camps. Am I right my American friends? Anonymous 11:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse

edit

The user Destroy Litecoveria is abusing the page of names. Sysop, please ban

The evidence is in his last edit here

done, along with having "processed" more vandalism and some maintenance due. oscar 02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

edit

Why not a wikipedia portal? It seems unnescessary to have a whole wikipedia for it...65.101.174.127 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small typo on the front page

edit
It is intended that this wiki be complete history of the attack

'complete history' needs an article, preferably the indefinate 'a'. (And a sidenote: do we want to archive some of this discussion? Talk pages voer 32KiB seem undesirable. -- Luca Masters 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

edit

in the 'Personal Experiences' page, there is an anoymous poster with a one-line message denouncing America (he's near the bottom). Do we remove him? Technically, it is his experience, but it's rather Trollish. (Anoma_Lee of normal wikipedia)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_at_sep11wiki&oldid=24925096"