Template talk:Sep11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template has been protected from editing until disputes are resolved on this page.
Unprotected. I have implemented my proposed solution as there was broad, if not unanimous, agreement for it. See Template:InMemoriam for the format I used; see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:InMemoriam for the pages on which I placed it. —No-One Jones (m) 04:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Summary of opinions so far

This is a summary of the opinions so far on the placement of the Sep11 link, written up by —No-One Jones (m). Feel free to add yours in the appropriate area or fix your opinion if you feel misrepresented, but please don't turn this into a threaded discussion—place your comments in the appropriate area below.

Please also provide a brief explanation of your reasoning.

The September 11 articles should contain a link to sep11:In Memoriam
  1. VeryVerily
  2. Gzornenplatz
  3. Neutrality
  4. Martin
  5. Mirv
  6. Fred Bauder [1]
  7. Rhobite
  8. Siroxo
  9. 198
  10. Ambi
  11. GD
The link to sep11:In Memoriam should be placed within the series template
  1. VeryVerily—believes that there is no reason to place it outside the series box.
  2. Ambi—no particular reason given.
The link to sep11:In Memoriam should be placed in the external links section
  1. Gzornenplatz—believes that because the memorial is POV and non-encyclopedic, it should not be treated as equivalent to the articles in the series.
  2. Mirv—believes that this template—like all other series boxes—should not contain external links, and that the memorial link should be formatted per the conventions for other sister project links.
  3. Martin—believes the link is not part of the encyclopedia and should not be treated as such.
  4. Neutrality—agrees with formatting and placement proposed below.
  5. Rhobite—believes POV Wikimedia projects should not receive "sister project" placement in articles.
  6. GD—tends to agree with Gzornenplatz above
September 11 Memorial Wiki


[to be placed at the end of the article
in the ==External links== section]
The link to sep11:In Memoriam should use a format and placement similar to that of other sister project links →
  1. Mirv—standard practice.
  2. Gzornenplatz—agrees with this proposal.
  3. Neutrality—also agrees.
The link to sep11:In Memoriam should be handled like an ordinary external link
  1. Rhobite—believes POV Wikimedia projects like this and Wikibooks should not receive any preferential treatment.
Indifferent
  1. Cantus

[edit] Not encyclopedic?

The "memorial wiki" is not encyclopedic. Any link to it should only be in the external link section and has no business here. Although it's a Wikimedia project, it can not be considered part of Wikipedia, where NPOV applies as a non-negotiable fundamental principle. Gzornenplatz 10:54, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The dispute tag is not appropriate to add to a template -it then makes every page the template is on disputed which is not the case. Only the template is disputed. Rmhermen 13:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Template has been protected due to edit war --Jiang 09:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gz, why are you removing the memorial wiki? Please explain. Thanks. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Look at the top of this page. Gzornenplatz 17:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
You say that the link is "non-encyclopedic" and "not NPOV." Why? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
"memorial n. Something, such as a monument or holiday, intended to celebrate or honor the memory of a person or an event." Obviously that's POV right there. One may disagree that those people should be honoured, especially in such a one-sided way (where's the memorial wiki for victims of U.S. aggressions?). Gzornenplatz 17:50, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
If you want to start a memorial wiki for victims of U.S. aggressions, you can start one. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:30, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
No, I can't just start a new wiki. And regardless, any "memorial" is inherently POV. The solution is not to counter one POV wiki with an opposite POV wiki. You of all people should understand this, "Neutrality". Gzornenplatz 18:46, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I'll ignore the insult. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:38, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
What insult? You say on your user page: "I picked the username as a constant reminder to me and others that Wikipedia's relevance depends on it being a neutral resource." Then you should be the last person to defend internal links to a "memorial wiki", which by the dictionary definition is intended to "honour the memory" of those people, which in turn is obviously a POV statement that the memory of those people deserves particular honour, and which has nothing to do with the job of a good encyclopaedia, i.e. it "being a neutral resource" in your own words. Gzornenplatz 20:46, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gzornenplatz - sep11.wiki should probably be under "external links", as it is not part of the encyclopedia, and is therefore "external". The POV issue makes this a matter of concern. Martin 15:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is (as Fred Bauder notes) a sister Wikimedia project of obvious relevance. The POV issue is a red herring. The link says "memorial", so the user can expect to find a memorial. VeryVerily 23:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why should we link to a memorial in an article series template? This implies it is part of the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is strictly NPOV, and the memorial isn't. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
The word memorial plainly negates any such prima facie implication. VeryVerily 07:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert revert revert

VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, please try to find something useful to do other than reverting each other repeatedly. -- Infrogmation 06:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • I've protected the page:
This is the edit war that never ends
It goes on and on, my friends
Some people started reverting, not knowing what it was
And kept on reverting, just because just because
This is the edit war that never ends
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:49, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Very poetic, but weren't you involved in this edit war? VeryVerily 14:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nope, not this one. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:31, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed compromise

September 11 Memorial Wiki

How about placing a prominent sep11: link in each of the September 11 articles, using something like the Wikiquote template →

Would that be an acceptable compromise? —No-One Jones (m) 01:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) (note: box has been slightly altered since original posting)

What's the point? VeryVerily 02:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In many words: It would retain a prominently highlighted link to the memorial wiki in each of the September 11 articles, thus satisfying (in part) those who believe we should have such links. It would remove the link from the series box, thus satisfying (in part) those who don't believe the non-NPOV memorial site should be treated as equivalent to the NPOV articles. In one word: compromise. —No-One Jones (m) 02:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This seems like needless complexity to solve a non-problem. It's just wasteful when the main box is there to receive. VeryVerily 05:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's only a "non-problem" if you ignore the objections raised by Gzornenplatz (above) and by me (below) to placing it in the series box. —No-One Jones (m) 06:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz's objections have not stood up. Yours seem off-topic; there's nothing wrong with putting it in the series box, even if it could be consistent formatting to have a separate box placed at the bottom. VeryVerily 07:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No other series box contains a sister project link. Why should this one be different? —No-One Jones (m) 15:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps because other series boxes aren't on topics which have their own Wiki? VeryVerily 10:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only if it's in the External Links section. Gzornenplatz 01:13, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's so far been the standard practice for these sister project templates (i.e. Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikisource, and Template:Wiktionary) —No-One Jones (m) 02:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I support this idea. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think this is any kind of improvement, and I have yet to see a good argument for why it shouldn't be in the box. VeryVerily 03:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No article series box that I've seen contains external links, even to Wikimedia projects; however, many articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, probably more) have highlighted sister project links placed as I've suggested above. —No-One Jones (m) 04:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Such as Agenda? That placement is fine. VeryVerily 05:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That placement is also extremely rare, and rightly so: the convention is to place the sister project boxes at the end of the article, in the beginning of the external links section if one exists. Since you will find that nearly every article in the lists I cited above uses the standard format, I have to wonder why you picked that one. —No-One Jones (m) 06:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Horde. Reputation. Kingpin. Kumpil. Shall I go on? If you're going to make implicit accusations, check your facts first. Agenda was one of the first ones I looked at. VeryVerily 06:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This proves what? Two of those place the template near the end and the other two ought to; it only appears near the top in reputation because that article consists of a single short sentence. Anyway, there are hundreds more that place the sister project box in its appropriate place: at the end of the article. —No-One Jones (m) 06:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ought is a great word. I'm mostly rebutting your implicit charges of selective choice, but that's getting boring. I repeat that I have yet to see a good argument against the placement it's had. VeryVerily 07:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And I repeat that no other series box contains a sister project link and many other articles have sister project links with the formatting I've suggested. I have yet to see a good argument why this template should fly in the face of convention. —No-One Jones (m) 15:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't see how making the Memorial link more prominent is helping anybody's cause. Yes, the link in the box is somewhat POVish, but it is not really THAT important. I don't think I will waste any more reverts here. I don't have a position on the matter right now. --Cantus 04:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

The real question is why Gzornenplatz is obsessed with deleting it. None of his arguments hold water, so the answer could be ugly indeed. VeryVerily 05:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whatever his motivation is, I agree with his conclusion. The 9/11 memorial wiki is POV by its nature and should not be linked, either in the template or in a separate box. It should be a simple external link in the proper section. My rationale is that POV Wikimedia projects shouldn't be given preferential placement on Wikipedia. I am fine with boxes for Wikiquote and Wikisource since those are inherently NPOV. I think Wiktionary has an NPOV policy, but I couldn't verify that. Wikibooks and the 9/11 memorial should not get any preferential placement, due to their point of view. Rhobite 19:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an extremely strong opinion either way on this, so I'm just going to make a quick comment. There should be links in several articles (either via the navbox or something else) to the 9/11 wikimemorial for two reasons: The project is intrinsically related to the articles and was created so that there would be an appropriate place for memorial pages, and sister projects generally link to each other in appropriate circumstances. It's not violation of NPOV to include a link to the memorial, as long as it is qualified as such. —siroχo 12:13, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the word M - E - M - O - R - I - A - L should make it clear to the reader what they're going to get. VeryVerily 10:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mirv: No one indeed [2]. But fine if you'd implemented this "compromise" - which I objected to - you should have said something to that effect. VeryVerily 10:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did. Read the top of this talk page. —No-One Jones (m) 10:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose it won't salvage me too much to note that new comments usually go at the bottom. VeryVerily 11:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How can this template not have an interwiki link to sep11

Just curious Trödel|talk 01:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No response but I noticed that somebody put the link in and then it was reverted with reference to a vote that was not a vote - but summary of opinions. Doesn't seem like a very wikipedia way to go. I found 4 articles that did not have reference to the memorial wiki. It makes much more sense to me to put it in the template so it is always there and new articles will have it, etc. Trödel|talk 04:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You got it backwards. We don't make decisions by voting around here, we make them by discussing things. I still think that the September 11th wiki should not be linked from this template, due to the reasons I and others expressed in October. Please read the previous discussion. Rhobite 05:06, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Actually I thought it was we reach a compromise through discussions and concensus building and vote only when we absolutley have to - anyway - I did read through them. I will remove the intra wiki link - I edited all the articles that didn't reference the memorial wiki to include them - but I still think it is better to include it in the template somehow - like a float bottom or soemthing if such an html command exists - to be sure that it is on every page that gets this template. Trödel|talk 05:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The September 11th wiki shouldn't be linked from this template IMO. It's an external link and belongs in the external links section, formatted and presented just like any other external link. Jamesday 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As a compromise I propose linking the word "Victims" to the Sept 11th wiki. The word is currently unlinked. It seems odd that we have articles for "Survivors" and "Foreign Casualties" but not for the Victims proper. Yes, it is an external link, but its not like we are linking to a random site; its a sister project, which I believe there is some precedent for. People clicking on the word "Victims" obviously want information about the victims which is something we can't provide with a regular wikipedia article. If one day there is a Wikipedia article which provides better coverage of the victims I propose that we change the link to that article at that time. Savidan 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not link anything in the template to the Sept11 wiki. I believe creating a regular Wikipedia article listing the victims would be a great idea. We could then link that from the template. There used to be such an article, but it got out of control, so people decided to delete it and create the Sept11 wiki in it's place. The Sept11 wiki is no longer actively maintained and is now a vandal's paradise. I think emotions have cooled off to the point that it would appropriate to reintroduce the article to Wikipedia proper (following the appropriate policies of course). Kaldari 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone please take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Casualties_of_the_September_11,_2001_Attacks:_City_of_New_York. Thanks! Kaldari 21:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I am not very handy with editing wiki, so please forgive if this is not in the correct place. BUT, please remedy page on Sep11, as it does not meet standard of Wikipedia. I expect that people turn to Wikipedia to inform themselves on the events of Sep11, and that it should not be treated as just a memorial, that is ridiculous in my eyes. In short, yes I do see it as an encyclopedic article. As such it should conform to the standards set by the rest of the articles on Wiki. Currently it presents a very single-minded POV. There is no criticism to be found on American Policy and that is a matter of such controversy I could not believe my eyes when I found nothing about it! The "article" even makes it appear as though globaly, every non-muslim country has been backing America on this. This is simply not true. Especially the paragraph on the aftermath should include the new-found dislike towards America from the rest of the world. The outrage of the world should be included. We have been doing so much here in Europe to show our disgust with americal policy/politics. This article should reflect that. Thank you.

-Agreed. The entire article is extremely bias, such as calling alternative theories "conspiracy theories", which immediately puts them at a level of illegitimacy associated with the warped definition of that term, when in reality a wiki entry should be as accurate and un-biased as possible, and from wiki's entry on "conspiracy theories" : "Historians often take conspiracy theories "as actual theory, i.e., the viewpoint with the greatest explanatory value and the greatest utility as a starting point for further investigation, explanation and problem solving"" so If wikipedia cares about actual legitimacy and not just perpetuating the Appeal to authority and Argumentum ad populum logical fallacies, some serious changes are in order. Another notable problem is the "most structural engineers believe in the official story" comment and is referenced to a scenario of collapse which does not consider TIME and talks about steel loosing strength at certain temps, but as all steel workers know, you not only need heat, you need time, and steel of the thickness used in construction would require multiple hours to lose even a small amount of their strength, and there is no quantification of the most engineers believe statement, which the article is citied as the source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sith7 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another addition to the template

Prowling Special:Newpages, I just ran across the article Health effects of September 11, 2001 attacks. It's not in top shape, but it seems like it'd be a good addition to the "Effects and Aftermath" section. Opinions? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Global Guardian

Global Guardian doesn't belong under 'Response'. It isn't a notable aspect of 9/11 at all. If there are no objections, I'll remove it. - Crosbiesmith 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Corleonebrother - Thanks. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better as a footer?

This template is rather long (tall?). Does anyone object if I make it a footer ({{navbox}}) and move it to the bottom of each page?--Old Hoss 05:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should 9/11 opinion polls be on this template?

I've tried adding this before but it was removed without a reason. Does anyone have any objections to me adding this page? Corleonebrother 12:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is sufficiently central to the event to link from the template. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tom - its good to know your reason for reverting. I happen to disagree with you; I suggest that its more central than some of the other articles in the template. And I don't see the harm in adding it anyway - it may be useful for some people. Let's wait and see if anyone else has an opinion on this. Corleonebrother 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instead as a sidebar

Perhaps this template should be used at the bottom of articles instead. Tends to complicate article layouts as a sidebar. KyuuA4 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)