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 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation 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 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management 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.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history 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 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) High‑importance 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics 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.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper 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 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 United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

	Other talk page banners

The redirect 2001 terrorist attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 terrorist attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime, the reason given for the addition of the {{Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think otherwise, but whatever. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to understand why we don't keep this photo collage much more representative than the image montage in the article at the moment. The main image I suggested is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. Chronus (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – Anne drew 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. Chronus (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. Chronus (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? Chronus (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 Do you have any alternative suggestions? Chronus (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.Moxy🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch5 And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the exact moment the plane crashed into the WTC? Chronus (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The version Chronus supports is an improvement, but I am seeing that users like Butterscotch5 and Cena332 have been making a sincere effort to discuss this before making the change. In that conversation, I see no input from those who wanted to update the collage. However, now that Chronus has initiated this RfC I hope there will be more input from those who support the change.

I suggest keeping the current collage, but still working on the newer one to get it to a place where there is more agreement on improvements. Maybe the newer collage should have the same images as the current one? Or half the same ones? It is possible Butterscotch5 is right that the newer version isn't featuring the best images. To me, the newer version seems better because those with aging eyes can click on the individual images to see much larger versions and read the captions to better understand what they are seeing. This seems better than a single image file composed of several smaller ones, with a fairly large block of text to read through that describes them. Ender and Peter 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support (but keep current main image) Functionally, I think the proposed collage is better, the way each image is separate and has its own caption. It can be a bit unwieldy for some to click on a collage and scroll through it as one giant image. Also, the three separate images for the Pentagon crash seem unnecessary. But I agree with Kowal above that the current main status quo image is more "iconic". Showing the moment of impact with the explosion might feel more sensational but ultimately isn't important. The dark billowing smoke coming out of the towers is the ominous image that most people have in mind when they think of that day, and I think it actually captures the emotion of the day better than the fireball picture. Kerdooskistalk 22:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with modification The current collage is rather crowded because it wants to capture so much of an extraordinarily complex and sophisticated attack as well as some of its consequences. I'd even say to cut down the proposed collage so as to represent one image per attack site (Pentagon, Towers, Flight 93). I think that'd improve visibility in keeping with HiLo48's concerns.

I'd also propose resizing the images to be equally large. I think doing so would prevent the suggestion that one attack site is more important or significant than another based on size alone, which I personally currently perceive in the proposed collage. Unidentifiability (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The proposed collage is more representative of the attacks, and gets across the main sequence of events much better and more concisely. Kzm193 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh why would you remove the Extended protection for 9/11 any random bozo can just edit it for the lulz New antares (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly three years since the extended confirmed protection was lowered to autoconfirmed protection, and extended confirmed protection was itself only in place for six months in 2021-2022. - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However, I've asked for extended protection a few times and it was dismissed. I want you to know that I am totally on board for an extended protection on the September 11th attacks page and any related pages; especially now with the situation going on here in America. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for us to make that decision. If you are serious about preserving the details, then I suggest creating a website or joining a Facebook group that commemorates September 11th appropriately. Butterscotch5 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the "Planning" section is based on a misquote of the original source and should be removed from the article.

"However, Lawrence Wright wrote that the hijackers chose the date when John III Sobieski, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, began the battle that turned back the Ottoman Empire's Muslim armies that were attempting to capture Vienna in 1683. Vienna was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg monarchy, both major powers in Europe at the time. For Osama bin Laden, this was a date when the West gained some dominance over Islam, and by attacking on this date, he hoped to make a step in Islam "winning" the war for worldwide power and influence."

This explanation seemed so bizarre and out-of-place for me, I felt the need to check the original source. In his book "The Looming Tower" Wright states.

"Viewed through the eyes of men who were spiritually anchored in the seventh century, Christianity was not just a rival, it was the archenemy. To them, the Crusades were a continual historical process that would never be resolved until the final victory of Islam. They bitterly perceived the contradiction embodied by Islam’s long, steady retreat from the gates of Vienna, where on September 11—that now resonant date—in 1683, the king of Poland began the battle that turned back the farthest advance of Muslim armies. For the next three hundred years, Islam would be overshadowed by the growth of Western Christian societies. Yet bin Laden and his Arab Afghans believed that, in Afghanistan, they had turned the tide and that Islam was again on the march."

There is nothing here to suggest that Bin Laden chose this date specifically to avenge a historical Muslim defeat. Wright states that Islam's so-called "decline" against the Christianity fueled the Jihadist anger towards the West, but nowhere in the book he makes a claim that the date of Second Siege of Vienna was chosen for the 9/11 attack.

There are other issues with this dubious claim. Why would a Jihadist who had a Salafist approach to life even celebrate the Ottoman Empire which was seen as a corrupt and irreligious polity? (especially considering how Wahhabists declared a Jihad against the Ottomans in the 19th century). Secondly, the Ottomans used the Islamic Calendar, so for Muslims, the final battle of the Siege of Vienna happened on the 3rd of Ramadan, 1094 AH, and not on 9/11. Thirdly, the theory of perceiving the Siege as a pivotal date leading to the decline of the Muslims has been long refuted in the academic circles. Lastly, this battle and its effects do not have any special place in the Muslim mindset. It is surely important in the nation-building myths of Central and Eastern Europe, and for the far-right Christian nationalists but the Islamist mindset is mostly shaped by the wars led by the Prophet, the Muslim expansion during the first four caliphs and the Arab-led Umayyad and Abbasi Caliphates.

In summary, Wright does not claim a connection between 9/11, and the Second Siege of Vienna. There are no references to this date in Bin Laden's writings and speeches. This section is a total fabrication which clashes with the source mentioned in the article and the historical facts.

This section should be removed from the article completely. 85.104.173.70 (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it, and our cite is to this article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/03/how-jihadists-schedule-terrorist-attacks/

That article does cite Wright's book, but it sounds like they completely misconstrued him based on what you've quoted here. It looks like Foreign Policy just quoted him out of context to support their assertion. As such, I've removed that section from our article. Good catch! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]