Talk:September 11 attacks

Collage repetition

I don't think the collage should have these exacted images in the collage. I believe the collage should be reverted to the original, or at least propose a modified on, because some of the images are exactly the same as the collage on Casualties of September 11 attacks. The collage should be a bit more unique on this page. Also, there is no mention of Sdkb having permission to revise this collage in this talk page. BretHarteChitown (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia administration might see something I don't have access to; but from what I can tell, this user has not made any edits in the past six months that involves the September 11th talk page — either the current page or archived pages. I'm also not sure what you are trying to say, is there an issue with the collage? Are you referring to the supposed changes the tagged user made, again not sure when this was because I'm not seeing any edits in the past six months. I see some edits to this page made by you in the past few days, and I can't keep track of what you've added or deleted. Butterscotch5 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't added or deleted anything outside of this topic of the talk page, to make to some corrections and add some evidence. You also don't need to "keep track" of what I added or deleted on this page, because I have created this account in October 2025. It isn't very relevant ethier. As for the collage, I don't think anything is technically wrong with it. Just that it seems to be a slight replica of the collage on Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and the creator of the collage seemed to add it himself even though he hasn't talked about adding this collage since 2021. So I suppose that there should be a discussion about this, just to be fair. BretHarteChitown (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@BretHarteChitown I've reverted it. He added his own footnote in there too and removed this <--Do NOT change a photo without discussion first on the talk page.--> Cena332 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay @Cena332, thank you for responding back. BretHarteChitown (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Died a bunch of people like that’s very sad and peoples like parents like just like sad like super sad ~2025-42034-59 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for opening this discussion, @BretHarteChitown. (I was not notified of it until the revert, because when you edited your comment to mention me, there was no new timestamp so it didn't generate a ping.)

I made that collage back in 2021, and it was present in this article for several years. At some point during that timespan, I'm guessing it was copied to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, so that's why it's also present there. But because that article is a subtopic of this one with far fewer views, this should have first dibs (for lack of a better term) on images to use for the collage; if differentiation is needed, it's on that article to do it.

I checked in on this article recently and saw that the collage had been adjusted in ways that I think make it worse (this is unfortunately quite common with collages), so I attempted to restore my version.

Here are the two versions for easy comparison (present is on the left, mine on the right):

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; a firefighter requesting
  assistance at the World Trade Center site
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

• From top, left to right: The Twin Towers burning
• Rescue workers at Ground Zero
• Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Fragment of the Flight 93 fuselage
• 9/11 Memorial reflecting pool and One World Trade Center

I think the current version has two main issues. First, it's not balanced between the different parts of the attack. It has two images for the Trade Centers, either two or four for the Pentagon (depending on how you want to count), and none for Flight 93. More prominence to the Twin Towers makes sense given that they're where the vast majority of casualties were, but the Pentagon is given too much and there should be something for Flight 93.

Second, some of the images are low-quality. In particular, the CCTV frames at the bottom are so low-quality it's hard to even tell it's the Pentagon without either clicking on them or having some contextual knowledge. The first two are also basically the same. (Less severely, the firefighter image is also fairly dark, something that I think my replacement option fixes.)

I think my collage is balanced much better. The top image remains the same, as the sight of the towers burning is the most iconic image of the attacks. The middle left photo represents the rescue efforts and first responders. (It is placed on the left, where it works better, as the flag forms a natural border.) The middle right image also remains the same, and represents the Pentagon attack. The bottom left photo represents Flight 93 and the aviation aspect of the attacks. Lastly, the bottom right photo represents the memorialization efforts in the aftermath of the attack and provides a note of closure.

What do other folks think — do you agree that the collage on the right is better? Sdkb ^talk 19:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If it was your collage that was copied, why don't we discuss this collage in a different section of the talk page. Not only it's different from the collage on the Casualties of the September 11 attacks, it also displays the crash of Flight 77, debris from Flight 77, and two of the memorials for the 9/11 attacks for closure. I don't agree that the CCTV images on the Flight 77 crash is low-quality. Even if so, there is already a video of the crash in the "Crash" section. Also, whether you think your collage is better or not. It doesn't mean you can just add a proposed collage that hasn't been spoken of since 2021. If you believe the collage should images of the rescue efforts of 9/11, there are images that show that here, which you can add to.

Here's the current collage and the collage I created:

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; a firefighter requesting
  assistance at the World Trade Center site
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames
• 3rd row: Fuselage debris of Flight 93
• Bottom row: The Pentagon Memorial and the
  South Pool of the National 9/11 Memorial

BretHarteChitown (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Or this one, that includes the collapsed portion of the Pentagon.

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames
• 3rd row: Fuselage debris of Flight 93;
  Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Bottom row: The Pentagon Memorial and the
  South Pool of the National 9/11 Memorial

BretHarteChitown (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

(Please use {{clear}} or collapsed content to make this thread navigable.) I don't think those proposals are better options for the same balancing aspects/image quality reasons. Your first proposal is also far too long, given the space constraints we have for this infobox. I am interested to hear what others think. Sdkb ^talk 05:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe the memorial photo should be in the Photo collage, rather the Rebuilding and memorials section of the article is more appropriate. You don't regularly see a memorial photo in the infobox, rather the actual events. A Wikipedia article is not to meant to 'provide 'closure', it's meant to tell you what happened. Cena332 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The article is supposed to cover the attacks in the broadest way, which includes their impact/legacy. That's why we cover memorials in the article, and also mention them in the lead. So why not reflect them in the collage as well? In addition, they're visually compelling (memorials are designed to look beautiful) and they add some variety to the infobox so that it's not 100% photos of destruction. Sdkb ^talk 18:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It is uncommon to encounter a memorial photo within an infobox, with actual events being the usual content instead. The purpose of a Wikipedia article isn't closure, but to create a comprehensive, neutrally-written encyclopedia of knowledge. Cena332 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

What I meant by "closure" was less "it makes everyone feel alright again" and more "it wraps up the collage by having the final stage of the event (its aftermath/memorialization) as the final picture". Sdkb ^talk 19:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A memorial photograph can be found at the conclusion of the article. It is intended that the infobox display the actual occurrences, rather than commemorations. Cena332 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox collage

Which collage should be used in the infobox for this article? Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Option A

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2nd row, left to right: Collapsed section of
  the Pentagon; a firefighter requesting
  assistance at the World Trade Center site
• Bottom row: Flight 77's collision with the
  Pentagon as captured by three
  consecutive CCTV frames

Option B

• From top, left to right: The Twin Towers burning
• Rescue workers at Ground Zero
• Collapsed section of the Pentagon
• Fragment of the Flight 93 fuselage
• 9/11 Memorial reflecting pool and One World Trade Center

Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Background

Prior to 2021, File:September 11 Photo Montage.jpg was used as the collage in this article. In 2021, I proposed it be redesigned, which was adopted via silent consensus and was used in the article for several years. It was copied over to Casualties of the September 11 attacks at some point (that article now uses {{September 11 attacks}} for the lead visual instead), and in November 2023 the top image was changed to one that's now a redlink. In March 2024 the entire collage was changed without edit summary or discussion. It became very unstable after that, with numerous swaps, a talk page discussion, a change back to the pre-2021 version for a while, and other modifications that I won't bother to trace the history of, ultimately arriving at Option A (which shares elements with the pre-2021 collage).

I recently checked in and noticed these changes. I attempted to restore Option B but was reverted, leading to the discussion above, where two editors proposed various options. Each received no support from other editors, so this RfC compares the status quo (Option A) against the longstanding version from 2021-2024 (Option B). Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Option B. September 11 was a multi-pronged attack, so a collage is useful for representing its different facets. I put considerable effort into the 2021 redesign, surveying the available images on Commons, composing them, and documenting my process (which I later generalized into the essay Wikipedia:Collage tips). Collages are notoriously unstable, though, and the present version does not display that same level of consideration.

Mostly copying my comment from above: Option A has two main issues. First, it's not balanced between the different parts of the attack. It has two images for the Trade Centers, either two or four for the Pentagon (depending on how you want to count), and none for Flight 93. More prominence to the Twin Towers makes sense given that they're where the vast majority of casualties were, but the Pentagon is given too much and there should be something for Flight 93.

Second, some of the images are low-quality. In particular, the CCTV frames at the bottom are so low-quality it's hard to even tell it's the Pentagon without either clicking on them or having some contextual knowledge. The first two are also basically the same. (Less severely, the firefighter image is also fairly dark, something that I think my replacement option fixes.)

I think Option B is balanced much better. The top image remains the same, as the sight of the towers burning is the most iconic image of the attacks. The middle left photo represents the rescue efforts and first responders. (It is placed on the left, where it works better, as the flag forms a natural border.) The middle right image also remains the same, and represents the Pentagon attack. The bottom left photo represents Flight 93 and the aviation aspect of the attacks. Lastly, the bottom right photo wraps it up by representing the memorialization efforts in the aftermath of the attack. Overall, each of the elements is recognizable (even at small scale) and both visually and topically distinct from the others, and the collage is short enough to keep the infobox from overflowing the lead section. Sdkb ^talk 03:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B The 3 images depicting the planes impact in option A don't add much and the memorial in B is significant. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option B (mostly). Remove the broken plane fuselage/windows picture and the Ground Zero as it looks today picture, insert the fireman picture. The fireman picture should be included because it adds a "human touch" and reminds readers of the sacrifice made by thousands of rescue workers. It's quite a striking photo and very inspiring, a testament to the human spirit. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A, as this is really about the attack, and not memorials. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A, would have to agree with Slatersteven. A collage for this page article should really be about the attacks, not memorials. BretHarteChitown (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A, I agree with Slatersteven and BretHarteChitown, and as I have previously stated, It is uncommon to encounter a memorial photo within a infobox, with actual events being the usual content instead. The purpose of a Wikipedia article isn't closure, but to create a comprehensive, neutrally-written encyclopedia of knowledge. Cena332 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  My response. Sdkb ^talk 03:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B, but I would replace the 9-11 Memorial South Pool photo with the fireman photo instead. Some1 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Copying my reply in the thread above for ease of reference: The article is supposed to cover the attacks in the broadest way, which includes their impact/legacy. That's why we cover memorials in the article, and also mention them in the lead. So why not reflect them in the collage as well? In addition, they're visually compelling (memorials are designed to look beautiful) and they add some variety to the infobox so that it's not 100% photos of destruction.

  If people are open to having a memorial photo but just don't like that one, one of Tribute in Light might be a good option.

  One other thing to note: The fireman photo is landscape, compared to the current square orientation of the memorial pool photo, so if we swapped them we'd presumably want to crop it to maintain the vertical alignment/avoid making the Flight 93 image too small. Sdkb ^talk 18:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B, per User:Some1 (Summoned by bot). There's room for the memorial image later in the article, and there is nothing wrong with having multiple ground zero images. I'd hate to lose that impactful firefighter photo. TheSavageNorwegian 19:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option B. Without prior reading of any of the arguments of the other participants here for option A or B, and being no ‘expert’ at all concerning this Wikipedia page, (but having intensely witnessed the 11 Sept 2001 event and its effects in the world,) I will vote for option B. For the wider world (excluding the ‘9/11-Wikipedia-experts’ who probably mostly are US citizens what I’m not), ‘nine eleven’ is about aeroplanes crashing into the twin towers, deeply insulting the United States of America; and hardly about the Pentagon being also hit by a plane (flight 77) or a hijacked flight 93 crashing in Penn. (which indeed have also happened but are not perceived as ‘essential’).
  Going from that (subjective) starting-point, I notice that collage A includes two of such ‘top relevant’ pictures (nrs. 1 and 3 of the WTC), collage B then has (in that personal view, assessment of mine) three top-relevant pictures: photos 1 and 2 of the WTC and photo 5 showing the September 11 Memorial which expresses the ‘coming-to-terms’ of the U.S. nation with the 9/11 event. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  (After having read the pleas of TurboSuper, Some1 and SavageNrw for replacing the memorial photo with the fireman, I politely disagree with them. The fire fighter is for me ‘too well-known’ and not very specific for 9/11/2001; however, until today I had NEVER, anywhere, seen a picture of that 11 Sept Memorial (even though I’m a conscientious newspaper addict), and I think that whole memorial is very impressive and ‘telling’. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC))

  It's funny 'cause I've never seen that firefighter photo until this RfC. I agree with TurboSuperA+ above that the firefighter image adds a nice "human touch" to the collage, which collage B in its current form lacks. The 9-11 Memorial South Pool could be placed in the #Rebuilding_and_memorials section of the article. Some1 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option B, but I agree with User:Some1 above, to replace the Memorial South Pool photo with the fireman. It's very much a symbol of the event to see a fireman in a photo. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 19:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option A - Images should focus purely on the attacks themselves (which is what the article is about), not the "legacy" of such. We already have an apropriate section for such "memorial" images. I also personally find the replacement of the firefighter with the American flag to be tacky. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 05:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option B, but replace American flag rubble with firefighter rubble from option A. Per sdkb it would be a geometric problem to replace the reflecting pool with firefighter; however, I disagree with sdkb that the firefighter is too dark. Rather, it is high-contrast which makes it easier to understand at the small display size of an infobox. The firefighter is more clearly a destroyed building whereas the flag could be confused with a scrap metal heap due to the presence of the buckets in the foreground.

The Pentagon CCTV frames are illegible, as others have said, and thus don't merit inclusion.

Per infobox purpose the "purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." Given that the lede concludes with discussion of the memorial it is appropriate to have an image of a memorial at the bottom of the infobox. Uhoj (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

For editors who prefer to keep the firefighter photo, I think this is a much better swap, since it replaces one image of Ground Zero rescuers with another. Sdkb ^talk 00:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option B - This is a difficult choice but as a Wikipedia reader I think option B is what I would expect to see in this article. My main problem with option A is the three images from the Pentagon camera footage. This is not commonly associated with it and are confusing for most readers. Option B presents this more clearly. My only concern with B is the image of the Flight 93 fuselage fragment since it is not immediately obvious what it shows but overall B is the better option. Ismeiri (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
• A but ditch the tiny Pentagon pics, overall the images seem better quality and most suitable for the lead. In B the one with the US flag isn't necessary and seems off (nationalistic?), and memorial pics can be featured elsewhere in the body Kowal2701 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oprion B, as I find it has the most descriptive images in terms of illustrating the events to the readers. Although I do like the firefighter image in A. Swee☩ Amber|Bbyshrkbss2 14:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2026

Information regarding Donald Trump’s involvement with the Saudi Arabian government and Osama bin Laden, in preparation of the attack as well as housing of the terrorists at Trump Tower is missing. As a key component of this September 11 attack, Donald Trump should be recognized. ~2026-13284-0 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You will need very good sources for this claim, so far you have produced not even one very bad one. So not going to be done. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as [the 1993 World Trade Center bomber] Ramzi [Yousef] yourself and others did.

+

The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as [the 1993 World Trade Center bomber] [[Ramzi Yousef|Ramzi Yousef]] and others did.

• Why it should be changed:

The quote has a typo: it says “yourself,” but the interview transcript reads “Yousef.” This fixes the quote to match the source. I believe "Yousef" got mistyped to "yourself" and appended to the quote

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Iso9er (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Iso9er (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Iso9er (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 07:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Infobox collage discussion

In favor of replacing the current collage with something more descriptive, but with now memorials in it, I decided to create my own collage proposal. Initially, I thought that have an memorial image wouldn't be a problem, even suggesting to add an image of the Pentagon memorial that was already in the article. Though as @Slatersteven pointed out, the article isn't about the memorials or aftermath of 9/11. At least not enough to add as a lead image.

So, I deleted the memorial images and choose to use images solely depicting the attacks. I also kept the original footer design and some image, but I removed the left to right extensions. The footer already descriptive enough, so it wouldn't need to let the reader know the image location from left to right. I changed the word World Trade Center site to "Ground Zero" for a shorter, more common name. I removed the three CCTV images of the UA77 crash into the Pentagon because it was low quality and a video of the crash is already in the article.

• Top row: The Twin Towers of the
  World Trade Center burning
• 2rd row: Flight 93 crater; fuselage
  debris of Flight 93
• Bottom row: A fireman requesting
  assistance at "Ground Zero";
  collapsed section of
  the Pentagon

What do you think? Should this be the new collage or should we kept the current one instead? Vote Oppose if the collage should stay the same or Support if this should be the new collage. BretHarteChitown (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Well I opt for, why do we need to change it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the collage could be more descriptive, aligned in the proper order (as in the order of events of 9/11), and remove the three CCTV images because they're just not needed. BretHarteChitown (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• UA175 Explosion Todd Rengel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs and many of the listed "Motives"
• The Background section relies too much on block quotes instead of summary style.
• The article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG, at over 13,000 words. Some information should be spun out or summarised more effectively.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JohnsonKV DSC 0043.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JohnsonKV DSC 0106.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)