Talk:September 11 attacks

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Wikipedia:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Wikipedia. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.[1]

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	September 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 19, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted July 5, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed July 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed August 30, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 25, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted May 24, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed July 13, 2015 Good article nominee Listed October 27, 2018 Featured article candidate Not promoted News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, September 11, 2023, and September 11, 2024. Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents Aviation portal This article 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. This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance). Death: Suicide Mid‑importance This article 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Firefighting High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. This article is supported by the Salaf task force. This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force. Military history: Intelligence / North America / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Associated task forces: /  Intelligence task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force New York City Top‑importance New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) High‑importance New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Skyscrapers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia / September 11 / History Top‑importance United States portal This article 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Noam Cohen (11 September 2011). "On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 'Edit Wars'". The New York Times. Brian Keegan (November 17, 2020). "How 9/11 Shaped Wikipedia". Slate (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. Stephen Harrison (September 8, 2021). "How Wikipedia Grew Up With the War on Terror". Slate (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. Alex Pasternack (September 11, 2021). "How 9/11 turned a new site called Wikipedia into history's crowdsourced front page". Fast Company. Retrieved September 13, 2021.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 89 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 14 times. The weeks in which this happened: September 8 to 14, 2013 September 7 to 13, 2014 September 6 to 12, 2015 September 4 to 10, 2016 September 11 to 17, 2016 September 10 to 16, 2017 September 9 to 15, 2018 September 8 to 14, 2019 September 6 to 12, 2020 September 13 to 19, 2020 August 29 to September 4, 2021 September 5 to 11, 2021 September 12 to 18, 2021 September 8 to 14, 2024 This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Moved, 17 January 2004, Discussion RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, Not moved, 21 October 2004, Discussion RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, Moved, 20 August 2008, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Not moved, 13 October 2010, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 31 March 2014, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 13 February 2021, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, Not moved, 14 February 2021, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Procedural close, 23 February 2021, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 26 January 2024, Discussion RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 9 February 2024, discussion. RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11 attacks, Not moved, 23 October 2025, discussion. The content of World Trade Center/Plane crash was merged into September 11 attacks on 11 September 2001. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. The content of Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks was merged into September 11 attacks on 22 October 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. Section sizes Section size for September 11 attacks (45 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 18,477 18,477 763 763 Background 5,418 53,836 190 2,346 Osama bin Laden 7,862 7,862 186 186 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda members 4,596 4,596 189 189 Motives 20,179 20,179 417 417 Planning 8,251 8,251 550 550 Prior intelligence 7,530 7,530 814 814 Attacks 4,738 76,667 39 3,135 Crashes 28,219 28,219 1,203 1,203 Casualties 29,989 29,989 1,278 1,278 Damage 10,653 10,653 402 402 Rescue efforts 3,068 3,068 213 213 Reactions 3,615 57,984 105 2,438 Immediate response 8,743 8,743 363 363 Domestic reactions 7,859 17,856 295 855 Hate crimes 5,467 5,467 258 258 Discrimination and racial profiling 1,846 1,846 151 151 Muslim American response 1,681 1,681 88 88 Interfaith efforts 1,003 1,003 63 63 International reactions 17,703 17,703 593 593 Military operations 10,067 10,067 522 522 Aftermath 64 45,084 0 2,315 Health issues 9,944 9,944 548 548 Economic 7,158 7,158 344 344 Effects in Afghanistan 7,007 7,007 337 337 Cultural influence 4,158 4,158 217 217 Government policies towards terrorism 10,273 10,273 592 592 Legal proceedings 6,480 6,480 277 277 Investigations 21 32,053 0 1,679 FBI 9,419 9,419 546 546 CIA 2,195 2,195 143 143 Congressional inquiry 6,401 6,401 244 244 9/11 Commission 3,974 3,974 143 143 National Institute of Standards and Technology 6,048 6,048 330 330 Alleged Saudi government role 3,995 3,995 273 273 Rebuilding and memorials 32 19,804 0 970 Reconstruction 8,325 8,325 341 341 Memorials 11,447 11,447 629 629 See also 1,067 1,067 0 0 References 17 117 0 0 Notes 64 64 0 0 Citations 36 36 0 0 Bibliography 10,501 10,501 0 0 Further reading 2,921 2,921 0 0 External links 5,446 5,446 0 0 Total 323,957 323,957 13,646 13,646

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2025-39287-57 (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC) it was not sure to be islamic terrorists. so to avoid offending people who may or may not have done something i would reccomend to change it to terrorist attacks[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A second plane hit the second tower" should be a redirect to this page

A notable phrase associated with the event ~2025-37349-71 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure this is a widely used or notable phrase, rather than just a description that will not feature as a search. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A crude joke/meme perpetuated by those who weren't even born on September 11th 2001 (ie, Generation Z and Gen Alpha) has absolutely no place on this page as a redirect. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC: Infobox collage

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Option A, as this is really about the attack, and not memorials. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  (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))[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]