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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The articles about the majority of the hijackers should be merged into this article and it should be expanded. This is a more centralized discussion to one started at Talk:Wail al-Shehri#Merge to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. This is similar to how content about deceased American individuals of the 2012 Benghazi attack who received significant coverage, were merged into an article American fatalities and injuries of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Individuals on that page, who received significant coverage beyond their connection to the event, retained individual biography articles such as the deceased ambassador. Thus and therefore, it can be argued that a few of the hijackers are notable for things not related to the September 11 attacks, but I think it can be successfully argued that most only received significant coverage due to their relation to the September 11 attacks. Otherwise, if each of the hijackers received significant coverage because of their connection to the September 11 attacks are notable and BIO1E does not apply, then it could be argued that each of the deceased in each hijacked flights, and that each of the deceased in each of the buildings impacted by those flights, also received significant coverage, and should all have stand alone biography articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure that NOTMEMORIAL is app;licalbe as this is not being used as a memorial. But yes I can see an argument for merge as most of them are only notable due to this one event.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Two of those articles—Wail al-Shehri and Khalid al-Mihdhar—are featured content, so of course you couldn't make any substantial changes to them even if you wanted too (per policy). As for the others, I've no particular opinion, except that they all seem to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, being generally backed by WP:RS, and so = WP:ARTICLE.I'm not sure if I've misinterpreted your last sentence—if each of the hijackers received significant coverage because of their connection to the September 11 attacks are notable and BIO1E does not apply, then it could be argued that each of the deceased in each hijacked flights, and that each of the deceased in each of the buildings impacted by those flights, also received significant coverage, and should all have stand-alone biography articles—but if the suggestion is that if X has received sufficient coverage to satisfy N, then Y must have too, then, no. Each topic is notable (or otherwise) on its own merits. Which is not to say that none of the victims isn't notable, but if they are, it for themselves. It is, unfortunately, the attacks that were covered in reliable sources; the attackers are an extension of that. The coverage does provide notability for some of the victims; Madeline Amy Sweeney, Betty Ong and Todd Beamer for example.WP:BIO1E is certainly a possibility, although of course it's governed by WP:WEIGHT and qualifies itself extensively. Still, interesting discussion though, thanks for raising it. ——SN54129 14:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
If there is enough content to write a detailed multi-decade bio about one of the hijackers, then that person is 100000% notable. 1E is mostly about low profile people. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 19:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Per Guerillero, yea, let's just delete Charles Mansen, Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald too, because they didn't kill thousands of people as the 9/11 terrorists did. I understand the "memorial" aspect is troubling, but WP:1E says (emphasis mine):
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
I believe the conditions are met to have articles on these fellows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Here is a clue as to why they are not the same "Ziad Jarrah" [], not one book about him on the first page. Lee Harvey Oswald [] multiple, bios of him.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Factor in 40 years time difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That is an assumption, [] 1967, [] 1967. So they were writing about him (not just the assassination) within 5 years.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Your google book links show multiple books on the 9/11 hijackers. When one person assassinates a world leader, it is not surprising for bios about that one person to be written. When a group of people murder a larger group of people, it is not surprising for books to combine their biographical information together, as your google search indicates. This apples and oranges brings us back to my quote of WP:1E and that I think these bios meet the conditions given. Otherwise, all hijackers would be in one article (as in the books you cite), which would be a too-large article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Not all of the hijackers are notable outside of the context of the September 11 attacks, and not all hijackers have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources even within the context of the September 11 attacks. There maybe a few that do, and those can and would then should have a summary in this article, with a link to their sub-article of this article. However, this article is not even 30k bytes, far smaller that WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, its called notability. Yes there are multiple books about the attackers, very few (If any) about each attacker as a individual. that is what "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." is about, the "individual's role".Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Question How big would this merged article be? Perhaps a draft article can be produced so we have a rough idea? If the proposed merged article is going to be so big that it would need to be split again anyway, this whole discussion would seem to be moot. FDW777 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is the current size measured in prose (I can't speak to how much overlap there is, but don't think simply adding them up is representative):
So, while some of that is repeated wording across articles, that is likely offset by the amount that probably could be added to the smaller articles if one searched for more reliable sources. Still uncertain if merely adding these up gives a representative number, but it clearly would be a larger article than WP:SIZE recommends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose pending evidence the proposed article definitely wouldn't need splitting. Thank you @SandyGeorgia:. FDW777 (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." in the cited policy. 9/11 is the biggest event of the century so far and a defining event in world history (because of the way the world changed), the nomination seems to be in response to the fact the Benghazi attack victims don't have individual articles but there's a MASSIVE difference in the scope/scale of 9/11. If this passes than articles like Madeline Amy Sweeney, Betty Ong, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham, Welles Crowther, LeRoy Homer Jr., Kevin Cosgrove, Tom Burnett, John Ogonowski, Lauren Grandcolas and Melissa Doi and many others will have to be deleted under the same "Per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL" rationale and merged into a "Victims of 9/11" article, does that sound good?. We don't play favourites to the good vs bad people, especially considering the perpetrators are more essential to covering the attack than the victims and will still be written about in 2500. A mega, world changing event means that normal rules are thrown away. Why merge featured articles into a bland article? It boils down to this; the 2012 Benghazi attack won't be written about in 2800, heck Libyan Civil War (2011) probably won't be either - but 9/11 will define this century forever. Just like St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is still written about. GuzzyG (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge per SandyGeorgia and others above; just one article would not be appropriate and would likely be too long. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: the profiles are famous and sourced enough for stand-alone articles. Like John Wilkes Booth—there's was no American who didn't know these people. --Foghe (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose:WP:NOTMEMORIAL is made moot by WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:BIO1E states that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.Alcaios (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: That two of the hijackers' articles are FA is proof enough that these articles have potential on their own. Furthermore, there's enough notable information on each hijacker that having one big article for all 19 of them would be unnecessarily gargantuan in size. Maybe some of these articles are and will remain perpetually small, but they should be decided on a case-by-case basis; one blanket solution for all 19 is highly inappropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 20:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose We should be guided by GNG.
Nominator argues for this merge under the authority of BIO1E, but then wrote
... it can be argued that a few of the hijackers are notable for things not related to the September 11 attacks, but I think it can be successfully argued that most only received significant coverage due to their relation to the September 11 attacks.
This is not how BLP1E and BIO1E have always been interpreted. (1) individuals known for multiple events are not BLP1E, even if one event has received much more RS scrutiny than the other events; (2) BLP1E and BIO1E have always said that if individuals are known for one event, but their role was central, they may still merit a standalone article.
One of the great strengths of the wikipedia is that richly interlinked articles give our readers choices over how to walk the tree of human knowledge. Each wikilink is a choice for the reader - keep reading here, or jump to the related article. Proposals like this would strip our readers of this freedom. Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.