Talk:September 11, 2001

nothing but the attacks

its as if nothing else happened this day, and due to this perception its hard to find other things. this really should be a page about other things, not just a redirect to the attacks. I'm currently in the process of changing any pages that link to this referring to the attacks to link to the attacks, so that this page can become a normal date (obviously with strong mention of the attacks) I'ts one of my projects. if you want to help, or find some stuff that also happened this day, User:Kaldosh/projects#September 11, 2001 Kaldosh 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether this particular redirect should exist, but will point out there is precedent for dates that are primarily notable for a single event before 2002 and future events to redirect to that event.

• January 1, 1970
• January 1, 2000
• January 19, 2038
• February 3, 1959
• March 7, 1971
• April 19, 1995
• April 26, 1992 (AfD nominated)
• April 30, 1975
• May 5, 1862
• June 4, 1989
• June 4, 1989
• June 6, 1944
• July 1, 1867
• July 20, 1944
• August 10, 1792
• August 14, 1967
• September 8, 1943
• September 11, 1992
• September 11, 2001
• October 5, 2000
• October 19, 1987
• October 22, 1844
• October 24, 1929
• October 29, 1929
• November 9, 1799
• November 11, 1911
• November 11, 1918
• November 22, 1963
• November 26, 1095
• December 7, 1941
• December 21, 2012

18.95.7.50 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 attacks

Can someone clarify what the difference is between this page and the September 11, 2001 attacks page is? They are near mirrors of each other. --Daysleeper47 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This redirect

Per what someone said above, having this redirect to the September 11, 2001 attacks isn't really right. Yes, I definitely understand the importance of what happened, but that doesn't matter. It is implying it is the only thing that happened that day. It was not. I say we redirect it to September 11, like lots of these other "exact date redirects".   jj137 (Talk) 03:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks/talk

This is a talk page about a semiprotected talk page about the semiprotected article September 11, 2001, and it is here because forbidding anons from COMMENTING about the 9/11 article or suggesting edits is a mistake. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unbelievably sad that this is the only way to solicit anonymous input to the 9/11 attacks. The state of this article is a blight on the good name of Wikipedia. 65.94.178.115 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

as the hangon tag makes pretty clear, the WP:CSD policy doesn't really belong to this page. Although I could imagine a talk page that for some reason might require speedy deletion, it's clear the designers of this never even imagined it could happen (hence the messed up {{hangon}} template). Whoever wants it gone should take it to AfD instead. The criteria for speedy deletion is very specific. I've removed the speedy delete template for now. The strange thing is that the talk page was even fully protected for a while. Though I can't find any anon edits that would justify that. Incidentally, the article itself has been protected most of the last 1 1/2 years. Again, I cannot really find many edits to justify any protection.. Obviously the sane thing to do would to unprotect the talk page and stop abusing the protect button.. I would post this on the talk page, but I just started this account. So I would definitely like to see this issue resolved. --NoPurities 08:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The full protects apparently lasted only a few hours each time on the talk page, but the semiprotects are being abused on the talk page. I am currently in favor of: a) an unprotected talk page, and b) a semiprotected Main Article. Then I would favor deletion of this current page and merging with the main talk page - but only then, and I have yet to see an un-semiprotection. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)