tarquin
Or call it "World Trade Center attack" ?
Uh, no. What about the Pentagon and Flight 93?
At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term "terrorist" from the title.
Why? The term 'terrorist' is almost always in the title of the incident when it is referred to in any place I've ever seen a reference (although it is very often just called "9/11" or "September 11" in the USA but those titles are not specific enough for us). The incident also perfectly fits the definition of terrorism. So there is no reason not to use it unless it is unreasonably offensive. I would, in fact, argue that *not* having the word 'terrorist' in the title would be unreasonably offensive (IMO, that would be white-washing, or at lest sanitizing, the title).
That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)
Taking out the word "terrorist" in light of the fact that the word is very commonly used in the title and fits the definition, goes against our common name naming convention and also creates a needlessly vague title. It also supports the POV that the incident was not a terrorist act which is absurd since it perfectly fits the definition.
So if something is commonly called something, fits the definition, is not unreasonably offensive, then that term should be used.
More generally (meaning not directed toward Tarquin):
Blacklisting terms is a very bad idea and is more PC than NPOV. Let's not forget that PC is in fact an extreme form of POV and is *not* akin to NPOV at all (which really deals with article *content* and not titles - titles are dealt with through our naming conventions).
PC = "politically correct" . Political correctness in the United States is a political and social movement which aims to use changes in language to prevent offending people who leftists think are offended by the use of certain terms. PC also aims to help change the way other people think by changing the use of certain terms (rather Orwellian if you ask me). This is *not* at all NPOV and should *not* be associated with the 'unreasonable offensiveness' clause of our common name naming convention (which is largely agendaless, unlike PC).
Wikipedia needs to *follow* common usage, not try to change it!
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)