Talk:Casualties of the September 11 attacks/Archive 2

Non-American

Please review the correct context of non-American title here. Maybe, non-US citizens might be more appropiate. (Camilo Sanchez 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)) Nixdorf, See Use of the word American, and contribute to its talk page if you'd like.[reply]

I don't quite get the title of this page. It says "Non-American casualties" but lists several American countries like Brazil and Ecuador etc. Do you actually mean "Non-USA-Citizen casualties"?

Nixdorf 09:59 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm

This site has a completely different list of nationalities. I am not sure if it is more correct though. --rmhermen

These numbers don't make any sense at all. Depending on how I add them up, but being conservative (e.g., the "Mexico 150 to 500" I took as 150) I get 2514 dead foreigners! That leaves ... er ... just over 500 US citizens. Tannin 10:37 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

I suggest redirecting to /Casualties until someone comes here and makes a non-stub with verifiable information. Martin

Probably not a bad idea, Martin. I just had a bit of a quick hunt on Google to see if I could get the up-to-date figures somewhere, and while I'm sure they are out there somewhere, finding them isn't obvious. Tannin

Though looking on this very page might help. (blush). Tannin

No copyright implications?

I shouldn't think so. You can't copyright a number, or even a list of numbers, though you might be able to copyright the actual ordering (as in, e.g., the ordered list of numbers that makes up a computer program). In any case, the numbers I stuck in just now aren't cut and paste, they are the sum of two seperate lists addedd together. Which makes what I did ... er .. original research! Eeek! If I get found out, I'll have to move it to Sourceberg instead! Tannin

Another site, http://www.worldstatesmen.org/index2.html, listed some nations that we forgot to mention here. I will try to find out the Belarusian losses on 9/11, but it will be hard. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[1] Mentions of a missing Belarusian, but I am not sure the fate of the citizen. IIRC, I heard four died, but I just need to find the official documents. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate

On June 18 2005 this article was proposed for deletion. An archive of the debate is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Although there was a majority of voters favoring deletion, there was not a consensus and therefore the article was kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 08:33 (UTC)

2 Argentine pople died thanks to the terrorist attacks in 2001, both were in te wtc. can i add them?

Just a question...

IF, and this is an IF, but IF it is the goal of Wikipedia to be truly neutral. Shouldn't the 19 hijackers also be included as non-American casualties from the 9-11 attacks? I don't particularly care one way or the other, but it would seem that if neutrality is the goal, both parties, innocent and terrorist should be included. 4.224.99.143 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, they should be listed separately.

Yeah, why aren't the terrorists included in the casulties list? They died too. And are the jumpers included in the WTC casulties list? If they are, that SCREAMS hypocrocy (excuse sp) because they didn't actually die in the event, they choose not to, but the hi-jackers did die in the event, but arent included. Screwed up world, especially when people complain about crap like the Simpson epidose The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson because they show the towers. People wanted it banned. Lighten up America. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the jumpers were included in the list. As for the Hyjackers, I dont know it they are included or not. This is a user generated infomational web site. If the information on it is incorrect, change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.63.130 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging pages

This article is different from the one nominated for deletion about a year ago. It no longer has a list of survivors' names. The main body of the text describes how few survived and where they were located in the building. This could be easily merged with the main article or the WTC article. I am not aware of any reason why this needs to be a separate article, though this AFD could offer explanations.

At this point, I recommend and merge and redirect. Editors who have worked hard on this should be encouraged to continue to do so after the merge, if that's what is decided Chergles (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being merged into the new Casualties of the September 11 attacks article, which is an effort to consolidate material in such as what's is in this "survivors" article. --Aude (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help on figures

Hi - I'm trying to clean up the sourcing on the September 11 attacks‎ page. There are several different numbers given for the total number of victims and victims for the WTC attacks. (sourced to a variety of better and worse sources) What's considered the definitive source for this? (I see "The Online Rocket" article is used here too - as the college newspaper for Slippery Rock University, it simply isn't RS for something like this, and I recommend it get replaced by something better) The CNN article does not state where its figures come from, so it's difficult to know if it can be used as the definitive number.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't even give that number. I have a feeling someone has deliberately given fake numbers, and the number contradicts the total given on the mian 9/11 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleveland84 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relax on the conspiracy theories, Cleveland84. There are people trying to mess up this article but no one actually fixing this article is screwing it up (look at my revisions over the past 3 months and you'll see that). I think the problem is that kids and non-informed individuals are trying their hand at contributing to these articles when they aren't qualified. Not saying you aren't, but I see it all the time.

Anyway, VseV, this is worth discussing. I personally don't feel that the "Online Rocket" or Slippery Rock University are entities that sound viable at all and I agree with your assumption of that.

New York magazine has a few interesting statistics on their page: http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm In regards to this and the CNN page, you have to understand that popular media is not the same as academic journal media - they are not required to reveal all of their sources. With that being said, we have to accept whether or not these individual sites and publishers are respectable entities. I personally think New York Magazine is reputable. What are your thoughts? WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 93

There is literally nothing about Flight 93 in this article. I am not well knowledged in this topic, so I wish for someone who is to add a section and more overall to the article. Unknowntbeast (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you and think that it is a huge weakness point in the article that it doesn't include this. I am a member of the 9/11 wikiproject, so I will make it a personal goal of mine to make this change. Thanks for the comment! WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start Class

There is no way by any stretch of the imagination that this is still a start class article. For the purposes of the 9/11 wikiproject, I am going to change it to a C class and then once I add a section on here regarding Flight 93 and Pennsylvania, I think it should be considered for a B class (after specific grammar review). People need to start committing more to these articles, however, because it's frustrating that people pose comments and never reply to them. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest casualty in buildings?

The article list the youngest casualty from the collapse (i.e., not in an airplane) as being 17. The citation for this point references a web page at http://www.albany.edu/mumford/wtc/age.htm that lists the casualties by age. Indeed there is a 17 year old casualty listed, one Jeffrey M. Chairnoff. However, a quick web search shows that Jeffrey M. Chairnoff was a 35 year old banker. Someone with more time, interest, and skills than me should perhaps research this point and revise the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.110.143.173 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-American casualities

In "Non-American casualities" there appears to be an error regarding the UK and Bermuda. The table states that there was 67 UK casualties and one from Bermuda. The * indicates that the 67 includes Bermuda (so why listed twice). However, the text above the table states:

UK with 67 deaths (excluding the overseas territory of Bermuda).

This is contradictory information, can anyone clarify please. Darkieboy236 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the casualties from Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Canada etc. listed as "Non-Americans"? 89.50.28.191 (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You very well know why. Stop trying to instigate an argument. The majority of English speakers know Americans as those from the United States. Feel free to go to a non-English language Wikipedia and make that argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.83.167 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More references needed

Somebody went through and grabbed all these numbers, but from where? A few are sourced. Is there sources for the others, such as those from the Philippines? --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India numbers unclear

The citation given for India lists 41 [2] but Bloomberg says "more than 30" [3] and cites a link that says 34 [4]. Can anybody run the numbers on this? -Etoile ✩ (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian casulaties

I would like to "challenge" the 3 romanian casualties. I found no source to support the claim. Though i found a story that says 4 romanian born american citizens were among the casualties. One was fleeing communist romania, a couple won a dv lottery visa, the last "moved" to the usa. Sources:

Foreign affairs minister also claims four romanian citizens lost their life in the attacks but gives no names, i assume they're the same four from above and most likely they retained their romanian citizenship. (in Romanian) http://mae.ro/node/10172

I would also challenge this line: "372 foreign nationals...also perished in the attacks", anyone has a source?

Also: isn't there a definitive list of those who perished? I see CNN has something like that but i don't know if that page is a good source.

Pista235 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom casulties

When I came to the article there was the confusing situation of an asterix besides the UK tally but no explanation of the purpose for the asterix. A search thru the history found the explaination was removed here [5] while leaving the asterix next to the UK tally and also not adding further clarification as to why our source says 67 but we say 66. I don't know if this is better then the original version with the asterix but it's obviously far better then the version before my change. Looking more in the history I found there was also a change [6] it seems people can't decide whether to include or exclude Bermuda. I note the text does include Bermuda to this day although they don't necessarily have to be the same if there's some explaination. Finally, I note I'm going solely by what people have said. Our source gives 67 but doesn't say one was from Bermuda so I can't be sure that's accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-American casualties.

There was a Uruguayan, Alberto Dominguez on board Flight 11. The list of non-American casualties does not seem to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moritzinla (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand casualties

Total listed fatalities is two, but this news source says only 1 New Zealander, Alan Beaven, died on 9/11: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9-11-10-years-on/5594751/Kiwis-reflect-on-9-11-terror-attacks. Who was the other fatality?

156.62.3.21 (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the People Who Jumped?

In the "By the Numbers" section, are the individuals who jumped counted as coming from the floors where the plane impacted or higher, or is there a separate count? Ileanadu (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing reliably accurate to the number of jumpers. Some sources are well over 200 while some are half of that. So it seems that the numbers refer to where the victims were at plane impact as opposed to where they actual died.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article calculates 200 but they admit that it is a soft number and that there is no official numbers. It is also unclear what percentage jumped versus fell through an broken window from a smoke-filled room. I think that since we don't know what floor people were on when the buildings collapsed (if they hadn't died already by other causes), that the floor listed should be the floor they worked on or where otherwise connected with at the time of the attack. Besides that is the relavant stat: where were they when they were attacked? How many that were on X floor made it out? --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think a section about people who saw no other option but to jump to their deaths should be added. It's much more relevant than that dog casualty, just my 2cp Overmannus (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating hijacker numbers into casualty totals

I don't see why all of the casualty totals listed here exclude hijacker deaths in their counts. It seems to me that this subject should be treated without a normative judgment as to what does or doesn't count as a death worthy of inclusion in the statistics. I also notice that the numbers in the main September 11 attacks article make a point of including hijacker deaths. So I'd like to here call for a reworking of the numbers, for consistency with other Wiki articles and for a non-normative look at the subject matter. Thoughts? Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Casualty denotes being a victim, including in the battlefield where a casualty might result from enemy fire, friendly fire, or other circumstances. However I have never heard of anyone being referred to as a casualty of suicide. The perpetrators clearly initiated actions intended to bring about their own deaths along with the slaughter and destruction of others. Their own deaths cannot be described as anything but suicide.79.183.45.200 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have the nationalities of the hijackers been left off because no confirmation has ever been made?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.137.212 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if somehow the suicidal terrorists manage to survive miraculously (just like the passport) then they would not be counted as casualties...??? This seems to be more a judgement or some sort of punishment and nothing to do with statistics. This is probably not the place for this - but many of the so-called terrosists have since turned up alive. so it would be more appropriate to just call them dead.

Regarding definitons of casualty:

ca·su·al·ties

1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.

2. One injured or killed in an accident: eg. a train wreck with many casualties.

3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: eg. Battlefield casualties were high.

4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance

Clearly 3 & 4 describe EXACTLY what happened on 9-11 - so all people who died are casualties by this definition. Not just "Victims" - even —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.179 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should retitle this "persons murdered on September 11th" to remove ambiguity. Suicides are not murders.71.109.161.88 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any changes of the title of this article should be proposed on the talk page for the 9/11 wikiproject. If it's changed without doing this, chances are that one of us are going to change it back so save yourself the trouble. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the issue. Any actual death toll that you will find in the media or in articles specifically excludes the hijackers. You can see it here [7] as an example (I could spend more time finding examples, but in the interest of time, here me out). The 'death toll' of the September 11th attacks is the number of deaths caused by the perpetrators of the attacks. Even if you say victims, like someone said above, the hijackers aren't the victims.

I purpose to continually keep this separate because many official counts do this as well. If anyone proposes to otherwise, I request that you post specific 9/11 articles linking to why this is justified, because I am going to post the ones that do not include the hijackers specifically if it is contested. It is CRUCIAL to keep it separate, and it is going to take a lot of convincing of the members of the 9/11wikiproject to get it changed otherwise.WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support separating out the highjackers and making it clear that they are not listed. Perhaps a separate section would be helpful. I support keeping them separate because I never think of causalities as including perpetrators. When I hear phrases like X number killed in the Columbine Massacre or the Fort Hood shooting I naturally assume that the number given is the number of victims. Why does a number matte? Because people want to know how many were killed, not how many were doing the killing. And yes, there is a moral difference being drawn. Human beings universally in my experience make a moral distinction between the killed and the killers. The times that I remember seeing the number including the perpetrators is either in a shoot-out, where all sides are doing some killing even if one is started it, or in murder-suicides, as in "Four die in a murder-suicide in Greenwich". In only a small number of bombings, massacres and similar attacks are the perpetrators included. I just think that when people ask "How many died on September 11?" that they do not mean kidnappers; they mean victims. I am a native English speaker from New England. Maybe English varies on this point. --Bruce Hall (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Summer

Apparently, Donna Summer contracted terminal lung cancer from "9/11 particles". Should she be added?

Sega31098 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

So I take it no muslims died on the day? Or do we need a reference for religion? Faro0485 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've scoured the web for a breakdown by religious affiliation, and those numbers are conspicuously absent. 173.74.10.29 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog casualty

A dog has nothing to do in the casualties. At least not in the Fatality category."A bomb sniffing dog named Sirius." A dog dying is trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.215.51 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! It does not belong in this category. Greenstarfox (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A casualty is a casualty. The information is sourced and it was clearly a big deal to many people. What one or two editors think of as "trivial" is... trivial. Neither of you have actually given a reason for your views. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who prefer that this article ignores animal life that was killed do so because they value human life far above that. So this divides editors into two distinct camps. The common denominator to both camps is valuing human life. This raises the question about another issue about a topic being ignored in this article: Why is there no mention about the unborn lives killed with pregnant women? It is a well established fact that pregnant women were killed that day. With my latest edit, there is now one short mention of this.

Hopefully we will eventually arrive at a version of this article that pays due respect to all life affected from this event.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is because "unborn lives", like dogs, are not traditionally considered to be casualties. Normally, when talking about a disaster, only people are considered to be casualties. I think the issue with dogs comes with the wording. It isn't that the death of a dog is 'trivial', it's just that the name and type of dog are 'trivia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maletruck (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base that opinion? It wasn't trivia to those involved, so why should it be trivia here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your nasty comments to yourself. God bless Sirius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.41.25 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say get rid of the dog. It's not a casualty. Dogs are property. Otherwise you have to start counting all the other animals in fishtanks and whatever else was in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.7.33 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion, and apparently not a widely-held one. Dogs are not merely property, otherwise we wouldn't have animal rights. Again, the info is sourced, and the dog is sourced as a casualty. Saying, "It's not a casualty" changes nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the specifics, but isn't wikipedia supposed to be as professional as a printed encyclopedia? You would never see a single dog's fatality listed in a credible death toll listing of any sort in a credible encyclopedia. 98.221.89.91 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not included in the death toll, as the article states. The dog episode was notable enough to have news articles about it, therefore it's a valid addition to the article. It wasn't just someone's random dog. It affects the credibility of Wikipedia about as much as it affects the credibility of the news sources that reported it, i.e. not at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty vs Fatality

Seems to me this artice should be renamed "Fatalities of the September 11 attacks" since it only lists fatalities. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence that doesn't belong in the intro

At the very end of this paragraph. " Supposedly 3 billion (according to An M60 For Hitler)"

The September 11 attacks resulted in 2,996 immediate (attack time) deaths: 2,977 victims and the 19 hijackers.[1] A total of 372 people with non-U.S. citizenship (excluding the 19 perpetrators) perished in the attacks, representing just over 12% of the total. The immediate deaths include 246 victims on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,606 in New York City in the World Trade Center and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.[2][3] About 292 people[citation needed] were killed at street level by burning debris and falling bodies of those who had jumped or fallen from the World Trade Center's windows. All the deaths in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon.[4] Some immediate victims were not added to the list until years later. Supposedly 3 billion (according to An M60 For Hitler)

Sentence deleted - possible vandalism. David J Johnson (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger counts

The numbers here are suspect and should be checked:

This number includes the 19 hijackers; 76 passengers and 11 crew members aboard American Airlines Flight 11; 51 passengers and 9 crew members aboard United Airlines Flight 175;[40] 53 passengers and 6 crew members aboard American Airlines Flight 77; and 33 passengers and 7 crew members aboard United Airlines Flight 93.[41][42]

The first two sets of numbers apparently don't include the hijackers, but the last set does. And the wording seems confusing, since the hijackers were also passengers. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Casualties

Hello, I am from Ukraine. I know that among the victims is a citizen of Ukraine and I want to write an article about it in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. But I do not know about it. Could you give me information of who was a citizen of Ukraine among the dead?--NOSFERATU (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of First Responders

Does anyone have an estimate for the number or first responders to the World Trade Center? It would be helpful in evaluating the figure of 1400 who have died since (e.g., how much higher than expected is this mortality rate?). Mukogodo (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putin Photo

A picture of the current Russian president, it seems to go without saying, truly does not belong in such a specialized article as "Casualties of the September 11 attacks." The intelligent, rational being notes this photo neither adds nothing of value or content to the page, nor does it enforce or supplement any idea already present. Rather, the dubious inclusion of the photo serves to distract at a minimum; at the extreme, it promotes an agenda that eschews any sense of neutrality. As tension between Russia and the U.S. has reached an all-time high, a picture of Putin would seem too politically-charged, too provocative, to be incorporated here. I implore readers dig deep within themselves and think logically about this broached matter: this inciting photo does not belong in this article. Mathygrammar (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems entirely appropriate for a section on "World sympathy" to have the image of Putin expressing condolences. Whether you like Putin or not should not enter into it, and this appears to be an appeal to emotion rather than a measured discussion of encyclopedic content. I have restored the image. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because an act by Russia's part equates an act by the part of the entire world? Where is there a section on "World sympathy" anyway? I don't see one. I agree that one's feelings towards Putin should not enter into it — as they did not here (I have no opinion personally on the matter, so I hope that's not what your implication was). What it appears and what it is do not mesh in this case; a saying comes to mind surrounding the word "assume." I stand by the fact that this picture adds absolutely nothing of value to the material, and that it enters new material not included in the article, something that should be expressly avoided at all costs in the making of an encyclopedia. I direct you to peruse Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." [emphasis added]

I simply highlighted the political aspect to conjecture its initial inclusion. Mathygrammar (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Mathygrammar is totally wrong. There does not have to be a "World sympathy" section at all. What the pic shows is that virtually the entire world, Russia included, was united in grief and sympathy at the deaths resulting from the 9/11 attacks. It does seem from their comments above that they are mistaken in their views on the, then, relations between Russia and the US and what they preceive to be the current situation. Whatever is said, there appears to be an agenda here. There is absolutely no need to consult Wikipedia Manual of Style - the editors contributing have long experience of all Wkipedia conventions. The pic is relevant to the article - or would they rather have one that suits their own view? David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never a stranger to contention, David J Johnson finds me "totally wrong," of course without any tangible evidence to back up his claim. The picture does not show that, but I applaud your ability to grasp at straws. What the picture does show, however, is the current Russian president signing something on a board next to the word "Russia." The photo does not expressly relate to 9/11, to the United States (the major country involved in the event, if you didn't know, David), or to the views of the world (and frankly, I'm a bit disconcerted at how you draw such conclusions). There's absolutely no need to suggest consultation of the Manual of Style be avoided, lest we submit ourselves to such autocratic ways; I will very well consult Wikipedia Manuals of Style when necessary and appropriate, as is here — even the most seasoned veteran can fall prey to a failure of recollection, or the wool falling below his brow.

It serves one well to tread lightly in the area of accusation. While I'm confident in asserting Putin is no current friend in the eye's of a U.S. populous or media, I have absolutely no personal opinion regarding the matter politically. I only strive for the most logical, sterile approach in creating the best public encyclopedia available. Understand that. Mathygrammar (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken about the existence of a specific section on expressions of sympathy, however, my objection to the removal of the image stands. It appears to me to be appropriate to include the image of condolence in an article on casualties of the attack, an article that is nearly unique on Wikipedia in concentrating on that sub-topic. Any editor in other publications would be very likely to use an editorial image of this kind in such an article, I fail to see why current US-Russian relations dictate its removal, and in fact object if that is the stated reason. The argument by Mathygrammar appears to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything else. Mathygrammar, you're wandering into inappropriately personalizing the discussion above. Please confine yourself to discussion of content improvement. Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you read what I typed up. I gave you my reason, citing exactly why. I indeed do not approve of it because it doesn't conform to Wikipedia standards, not because I simply do not like it, and I don't quite understand where you draw that conclusion. My point is to center focus on the U.S., on the victims; Russia seems to just appear out of thin air. Again, there is no mention of Russia, Putin, world or international sympathies, in the article anywhere. I believe any editor in any publication who submits a photo unrelated to the content of his article would immediately be placed on probation. I'm suspicious of this duality, or double standard: personal-attack territory? I was defending myself after being called "Wrong...totally wrong." Is this unacceptable behavior? Please enlighten: I'm a new user. And yes, the mistake highly confused me after not only David but then you quoted this elusive section on "World sympathy." Thanks for admitting the wrong. Mathygrammar (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not beholden to the image, but it does show public sympathy from a world leader. Not sure we have many appropriate and related images of those that perished that we could use legally. I suppose an image of the memorials at ground zero might not hurt.--MONGO 03:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a very active search for a more relevant, NPOV photo that we may use legally. Thanks for your input! Mathygrammar (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060822065313/http://www.september11victims.com:80/september11victims/STATISTIC.asp to http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/STATISTIC.asp
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/06/list-of-canadians-killed-911-sept-11-terrorist-attack_n_949877.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www2.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2009/9/10/33201/Highest-percentage-of-Hispanics-killed-in-9-11-were-Dominican
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20010920/lead/lead1.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://memorial.mmc.com/pgBio.asp?ID=82
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://newamericamedia.org/2011/09/ten-years-after-911-korean-families-still-hurting.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/1-140-wtc-9-11-responders-cancer-article-1.1449499
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060506155533/http://www.thejewishweek.com/bottom/specialcontent.php3?artid=362 to http://www.thejewishweek.com/bottom/specialcontent.php3?artid=362
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2011/09/08/september-11-australian-stories
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thewritersclub.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/tribute-to-911-bangladeshi-victims/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010093535/http://www.belarusembassy.org:80/political/presidents_letter.htm to http://www.belarusembassy.org/political/presidents_letter.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://jbonline.terra.com.br/destaques/11setembro2003/12set_01_eua.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/14spec1.htm
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/national/portraits/POG-02HARTONO.html?pagewanted=print
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/325994/pinoyabroad/us-embassy-remembers-16-pinoys-killed-in-9-11-attacks
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://filipinohome.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/remembering-the-911-filipino-american-victims/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with September 11 attacks

Why isn't it? Please leave a message on my talk page if you disagree... Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the September 11 attacks article already has a section on casualties, which is a summary with a level of detail appropriate for that article. This article is a detailed presentation of the topic, which would have too much detail for the main. It is common to have satellite articles around a main in this way. Wikipedia has numerous other parallel cases -- for instance look at Ukrainian crisis, Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis, etc. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the casualties article here, it seems unnecessary to have evacuation and the survivors of the towers. Would anyone propose to remove them?

This article is long enough to not be merged. I am going to boldly remove the merge tags. epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unborn Casualties

The article currently says that 11 unborn babies died on 9/11. Given that the notion that fetuses are even alive is politically contentious, and Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral, wouldn't it make more sense to change it to something less controversial, such as, "11 pregnant women were among the fatal casualties."?

DerrickRobotPants (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not controversial. Those babes has a heartbeat. Suggest you await a Talk page discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do a web search for "rights of the unborn" or "when does life begin?" It's clearly controversial.

DerrickRobotPants (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then initiate a Talk page discussion, rather than your PoV edit and edit warring. Also, take into account how they are mentioned on the 9/11 memorial and references for the original article text. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712075041/http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11/staff-report-sept2005.pdf to http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11/staff-report-sept2005.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/20020911List77Countries.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030085705/http://milan.usconsulate.gov:80/news/NE_ITA_091105_Padua_Speech.asp to http://milan.usconsulate.gov/news/NE_ITA_091105_Padua_Speech.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2004_Sept_14/ai_n6271399/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750647
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596580
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917162009/http://dsc.discovery.com:80/convergence/twintowers/twintowers.html?dcitc=w01-104-ae-0010 to http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/twintowers/twintowers.html?dcitc=w01-104-ae-0010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undocumented immigrants

No mention has been made that an unspecified number of people were not reported missing/dead because their families did not want to call attention to the immigration status of the people missing/dead or their own immigration status. We will never know how many died, because of this. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation. Wikipedia deals in reliable sources and not hearsay. David J Johnson (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Tower survivors above the impact zone

I find this confusing:

Only 14 people escaped from the impact zone of the South Tower (floors 77 to 85) after it was struck by United Airlines Flight 175, and only four people from the floors above it. Individuals escaped from the South Tower as high up as the 84th floor using stairwell A in the northwest corner, the only stairwell left intact after the impact.

If the impact zone extended from floors 77 to 85, and four people escaped from the floors above it, then surely it is inaccurate to say that "individuals escaped from .. as high up as the 84th floor". Does "as high up as" not imply that the 84th floor is the highest floor from which people successfully escaped? Or did survivors who were above that floor escape via some other mean (i.e., not stairwell A)? --Ori Livneh (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many Jews died in the 9/11 event?

The article says: "Contrary to some conspiracy theories about Jews being warned not to go to work that day, the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 and 400, based on the last names of the dead." -- Based on the last names? This is utter horse shit. There are countless German names which may or may not sound "Jewish" to american ears, but really only tell about the German background of their bearers, such as Lehman(n) or Wittman(n). Is there no authoritative and confirmed list of actual Jewish deaths? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to sceptic pages countering the hoaxes and false believes that keep being repeated?

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to put links where people can further read about the sceptic questions that were asked regarding the evidence but also were answered adequately? Even anno 2018, there's still people posting during todays #911 memorial that they have questions regarding this or that evidence, when these questions have been answered already. Thy --78.29.235.6 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly good English. If you are wanting to look at conspiracy theories, I suggest you look at 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Truth movement. However, there is absolutely no need to put links onto factual articles, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a forum for fringe theories. David J Johnson (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LEOs are civilians in all but colloquial usage of the term

The article describes law enforcement officers and firefighters as non-civilians. They aren't. Other than 55 military personnel, all the casualties were civilians (including the perpetrators, who were not conducting a military operation but just committing a crime). 64.134.102.81 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor: Missing and redundant words + suggestions for improving "Survivors" section

Error first, then suggestions:

(1) (Typo) In the "Survivors" section, missing word in first sentence: "... at least one survivor ... reportedly fell 15 floors and later rescued" -- should be.. "and *was* later rescued".

(2) (Redundancies) That same sentence starts with "There is one report of", then "and reportedly fell", which seems slightly awkward/redundant. Also, the sentence starting with "Some were able to rescue themselves"" uses "rubble" three times. Reword?

(3) (Word tense) Sentence that begins, "As of September 28, 2008...", and one that begins, "Talk show host Jon Stewart..." use current or mixed tense (e.g., "have been", "extends", "adds"), as do others in this section. Suggest minor review/rewrite to improve; perhaps also shorten lengthy statements for understandability.

(4) (Wording/punctuation) "Stewart's advocacy on the issue continued into 2019, in June 2019 he testified in front of Congress..." -- suggest either changing comma to semicolon, or (better) reword to "Stewart's advocacy on the issue continued through June 2019, when he testified before Congress..."

(5) Section headers don't seem quite right... first two subsections were events that occurred immediately within hours and days of the attack, and advocacy has occurred as a result of all of it. Seems like "advocacy" should be a level-three header vs. level-four. Maybe three equal subsections: "Before collapses", "After collapses" and "Survivor advocacy"?

(6) Under "Survivor advocacy", the sentence begins, "As of September 28, 2008...". Can this information / paragraph be made current with data as of 2019?

(7) Sentence that begins, "Talk show host Jon Stewart...": Stewart is not really a talk show host (maybe "former television host"), and is better known as a comedian, writer, political satirist, and advocate. Suggest updating the descriptor for accuracy.

(8) Stewart's quote, "Sick and dying, they [first responders] brought themselves down here to speak to no one": An important context for Stewart's statement was that some committee members were absent that day, and seats were empty. For that reason, he came to a full stop after he said, "down here to speak", and before he said, "to no one". Stewart went to add that it was "Shameful. It's an embarrassment to the country, and it is a stain on this institution. And you should be ashamed of yourselves (for those that aren't here), but you won't be, because accountability doesn't appear to be anything that occurs in this chamber." Bigger picture, the DoJ had reported in Feb 2019 that the fund was running out of money, and families might not get fully reimbursed on their claims. So Stewart (and the bill) wanted to secure funding for decades, rather than subjecting families to further financial hardships and continued lobbying.

SUGGESTION: Not suggesting Stewart's entire quote be added, but please put the existing quotation in context. His frustration was based on first responders and families having to repeatedly attend hearings to secure funding and compensation for their service and sacrifices---Stewart viewed the empty seats as disrespect. Minimally, add punctuation to the quote so it is not misinterpreted.

For quick reference if it's useful:

Thanks!

........................

P.S. FWIW, the "Never Forget the Heroes" Act became Public Law Number 116-34 on July 29, 2019, and extends the Victim Compensation Fund through 2090.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327/all-info

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.39.220 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for foreign victims

I tried to find Iranians victim but didn’t, same goes to Mali and other nationalities. Contributes should focus on this point for credibility 2001:16A2:7C09:7F00:11A0:A8C6:66F6:B498 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies and Jewish victims

Article should state that many Jewish people in America do not have Jewish last names. Given Anti-German attitudes around WWI (and many Jewish surnames are/were of Germanic origin); the general trend of Saami, Roma, and Jews to find it advantageous to outwardly assimilate in ways they were not able to in Europe but could in America (be it to avoid discrimination they assumed they would also face in America or from embracing American Nationalism after experiencing quality-of-life improvements caused by so-called "American Dream;" or even being adopted into America by a non-Jewish family and taking their surname while still maintaining Jewish identity (this last one is the reason that I personally have an Anglo surname, grandfather was apparently adopted to America from Cuba). I think it's noteworthy to state that neither my father nor the only girlfriend he had that I actually know to have been Jewish, had Jewish last names, while both of them were full-blooded Jews genealogically and she and her family actively celebrated Hannukah religiously and culturally celebrated Christmas. 2601:644:4001:F0C0:5079:E0A7:AE07:6EBA (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty totals

Danstronger, you reverted my changes to the number of casualties:

from 184 to 125 fatal victims in the Pentagon
from 2,977 to 2,994 total fatal victims
from 40 to 35 fatal victims in Pennsilvania
from 2,753 to 2,853 fatal victims in the WTC

Here's why I changed them:

The 9/11 Commission Report says 125 died at the Pentagon,^[1] though both FOX^[2] and ESPN^[3] list 126 fatal victims in the Pentagon (not counting the 59 aboard flight AA77).
2,994 is the number of listed fatal victims in the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.^[4]
35 are the number of people in the List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks who were aboard flight UA93, but now I see a number of people on that list have no place of death identified, and FOX confirms the 40.^[2]
2,853 = 2,994 – 125 – 35 + 19 (it should've been 2,770 = 2,994 – 125 – 59 – 40)

— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence says "These deaths included 265 on the four planes." My numbers are consistent with [8] and most other sources. For instance [9] has the 2753 number for victims at WTC including the planes. The September 11 Memorial webpage says 2983 including the 6 from the 1993 bombing, which is also consistent with 2977 total. Danstronger (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT DATA PUBLISHED ABOUT DEATH TOOL & INJURIES ON SEPTEMBER 11 2001

2996

(2,977 victims + 19 al-Qaeda terrorists)

CORRECT DATA ON DEATH TOLL

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN AMERICA

“Some 2,750 people were killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 in Pennsylvania (where one of the hijacked planes crashed after the passengers attempted to retake the plane); all 19 terrorists died (see Researcher’s Note: September 11 attacks),” (1).

1). Britannica Event: September 11 Attacks: Additional Info: Researchers Note

https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks/additional-info#Researchers-Note

Accessed July 28, 2022 KatResearcherOhio (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States". govinfo.library.unt.edu. Retrieved 2022-07-14. 125 died at the Pentagon
^ ^a ^b "List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001 | Fox News". archive.ph. 2016-01-28. Archived from the original on 2016-01-28. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
^ Walker, Johnnie WalkerJohnnie. "List of Victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks". 600 ESPN El Paso. Archived from the original on 2015-09-15. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
^ "Names on the 9/11 Memorial". www.911memorial.org. National September 11 Memorial & Museum. Archived from the original on September 11, 2021. Retrieved May 27, 2022.

9/11

please do not trust wiki but if it is this page because in wiki you can find a diamond in the ruff like this one 71.30.80.168 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

true death toll.

The true death toll is well over 6,000 if you include day of impact deaths and the combined deaths of survivors afterwards who died from directly related 9/11 reasons.

The death toll is well over 7,000 now. over 4,000 New Yorkers have died of asbestos related deaths directly caused by the 9/11 terror attacks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of July 2022 7,437 Have died from direct cause of the September 11.2001 terror attacks. This includes nearly 3,000 deaths on the day of the attacks. From Sept 12,2001 till July 31,2022 4,437 are known to have died from direct causes related to the attacks. The causes include asbestos exposure, Lung damage from smoke and concrete dust, fumes from burning fuel and plastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No comma for the deaths?

The first sentence says "2996 people died in the September 11, 2001 attacks...", but should there be a comma in "2996"? It should be "2,996 people died in the September 11, 2001 attacks..". MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper who survived briefly?

In the book September 11: An Oral History, there is a section about a woman who jumped/fell from one of the towers but survived the initial impact and, more than that, was coherent enough to speak to the person who found her. It's a hell of a story if it's true, but (to me, at least) it sounds like the author was full of it. I mean, how the hell could anyone survive a fall like that for even a brief period of time? It doesn't make any sense to me. 150 mph into the ground―no, into solid concrete―is no joke. The writer does speculate that the impact had been cushioned by an "air draft" that slowed her descent sufficiently, but even so I don't really buy it. As far as I'm concerned there is no way in hell a fall from that height is survivable.

Now, the reason I bring this up on the article's talk page is because if it can be verified (which I doubt), then perhaps its inclusion is warranted in the "Deaths by jumping and falling" subheading? Again, I highly doubt the story's veracity, but if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. Hmm1994 (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico is not a foreign country

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, not a foreign country, its inhabitants are American citizens and their deaths on 9/11 shouldn't be listed under "foreign". 172.118.196.0 (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photo with the Russian "president" Vladimir Putin should be replaced with a different image

The image of Putin signing a condolence wall to the foreign fatalities should be replaced or deleted, because he himself is responsible for a huge number of terrorist attacks on other countries. It is disrespectful to have this picture up when another photo could be worthwhile. 95.90.211.72 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest victim

In the article, it says the youngest victim of the attacks was 2-year-old Christine Lee Hanson aboard United Airlines Flight 175 . However, Lauren Grandcolas was pregnant with an unborn child aboard United Airlines Flight 93. Both Grandcolas and her unborn child are credited as victims of the attacks at Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville and the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York. I believe this should be changed. Brandondsantos (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 15 women murdered at 9/11 were pregnant with children. 11 would of been viable births. The ladies were 6 to 9 months pregnant. 4 would not of been viable 1-5 months gestation. Because of the lunatics surrounding abortion rights with a hate for children not born. The viable 11 were never added to the 9/11 totals. They should of been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:A012:9074:E348:9FF:EFB6:4430 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name before Occupation?

In the WTC subsection of the Fatalities section, the name list starting with Bill Biggart and ending with Dan Trant is gramatically incorrect and needs to be flipped around to Occupation -> Name and separated with commas. 2600:8800:1383:7900:C5D9:E133:560E:C899 (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States". govinfo.library.unt.edu. Retrieved 2022-07-14. 125 died at the Pentagon

[FOX-2] "List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001 | Fox News". archive.ph. 2016-01-28. Archived from the original on 2016-01-28. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

[ESPN-3] Walker, Johnnie WalkerJohnnie. "List of Victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks". 600 ESPN El Paso. Archived from the original on 2015-09-15. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

[Memorial-4] "Names on the 9/11 Memorial". www.911memorial.org. National September 11 Memorial & Museum. Archived from the original on September 11, 2021. Retrieved May 27, 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]