Jump to content

Dealing with September 11 pages

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
this message was posted to another page and later moved here.

In short, if a victim's entry has what looks like a tribute instead of an actual entry, move the tribute to the talk page for that victim. You can use the "move this page" function to keep the history.

Discussion from w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

  • w:Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr.
    • He may be a great guy, but this info certainly doesn't rate a 'pedia article. -- Zoe
    • I think that one was put in because of similar tribute articles. See here.
    • Ah. The article doesn't make it clear this person was part of the Cantor Fitzgerald victims. Maybe some more words explaining that? -- Zoe
    • My opinion is that we should get rid of ALL of those pages. This is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site. Andre Engels 12:54 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a special, September 11 wiki could be started for such topics as these victims? I believe that such a wiki would be very useful to some. --Juuitchan
    • Yip, articles about victims are fine as long as they at least tell us who it was, what he/she did, etc (frankly, I think we can do without those as well, but general opinion says we should keep those). However, such entries as "we miss him very much" or "god bless him" or "he was 39 years old" can be deleted without a problem, IMO. Jeronimo
      • You cannot delete them without a problem - getting into a major fight with other Wikipedians is in my opinion more of a problem than it's worth. As for those other articles - if that is the general opinion, I am with you in your dissent (except for those few that have another claim for fame than being at the wrong place at the wrong time). Andre Engels
        • While we're at it, why not include in the Wikipedia the name, birth/death dates, and a short bio for each and every individual who perished in the w:Holocaust? --Juuitchan

Not just that. Also the actions of the West should be included: Acts of the Democracies.

I'm deeply astounded by the extent of POV in Wikimedia and protest against this kind of chauvinism. I suggest: let's open one sister project for Jewish victims of Auschwitz, another one for German victims of Dresden bombing, another for Stalin's dictature, another one for Rwandan genocide and one for the former Yugoslavia. Are all innocent people killed in these slaughterings worth of anything less? Or just merge the content of 11/9 into Wikipedia and other projects. --Eleassar777 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the September 11 wiki is a separate project. It just happens to be hosted by Wikimedia. If someone wants to create a large amount of tribute articles for any other tragedy, I'm sure Wikimedia would be happy to host another project. ··gracefool | 00:04, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the September 11 wiki really is a separate project, maybe someone can remove the Wikipedia logo.

People interested in preserving some of the genealogical information can add pages for individuals to the Genealogy Wikicity, a "cousin" project.

Robin Patterson 20:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 11 Wikipedia - appropriate use of name? (removed from en:wikipedia)[edit]

While looking for something completely unrelated I ran across this → http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. The text on this page states "This wiki was started in 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The aim was to allow a more detailed report of the event than was allowed in Wikipedia." This is all fine and good, quite OK, but the site uses the Wikipedia name both in its URL and as part of the site itself (the logo and page titles, for instance). It is "powered by MediaWiki" and this page on meta suggests that the project is completely separate from Wikipedia, not even having the status of a sister project (such as Wiktionary, for instance). I do support people having a Sept. 11 memorial site that picks up where Wikipedia needs to leave off, but considering the high profile that Wikipedia has come to have, is it time to revisit the notion of removing the Wikipedia logo/name from this non-affiliated site, as was suggested in the meta-discussion thread? Thanks for commenting on this. User:Ceyockey 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (talk to me)

  • Possibly, but you really should discuss this on Meta instead, as it has no bearing on the English Wikipedia. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I briefly beg to differ .. it has impact on English Wikipedia in that this is essentially synonymous with "Wikipedia" in the media. User:Ceyockey 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That's the public's problem, not ours. The admins and policies of the English wikipedia have no bearing on sep11 whatsoever. Take your complaint to meta, please. --Golbez 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]