After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly
be talking about?
I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be workable.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
On 01/14/04 at 11:28 PM, "Martin Harper" martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk said:
After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly be talking about?
I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
Perhaps you are thinking of the US-backed coup led by Pinochet against the Allende government in Chile which took place on 11 September 1973? During the coup and aftermath ~3000 killed or missing so it is comparable with the US 9/11.
V.
Martin Harper wrote:
??? wrote:
After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly be talking about?
I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
You're probably thinking of the 1973 ''coup'' in Chile that the US ''supported''. "September 11 ''attack'' should refer pretty clearly the 2001 attack on the US.
On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be workable.
I'd rather have the year in there than the word "terrorist". Either disambiguates, but the year is more restrained. The article itself can say plenty on whether it was terrorism (I'd say obviously so in NY, but not as clearly so in DC).
-- Toby
Martin Harper wrote:
After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly
be talking about?
I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be workable.
Or call it "World Trade Center attack" ? At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term "terrorist" from the title. That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)
tarquin wrote:
Martin Harper wrote:
After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly
be talking about?
I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be workable.
Or call it "World Trade Center attack" ? At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term "terrorist" from the title. That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)
"World Trade Center attack" doesn't work because of the related attack on the Pentagon, unless there is some need to distinguish the two..
If disambiguation is needed using the year strikes me as the most obvious first line approach.
Ec
At 09:46 AM 1/15/04 -0800, Ec wrote:
tarquin wrote:
Martin Harper wrote:
After all, what other September 11 attack could one possibly
be talking about?
I thought there was an attack by the US some exact number of years before 11/9/2001? I seem to recall some heated discussion in the aftermath over which had the most fatalities.
On the other hand, "primary topic" disambiguation would probably be workable.
Or call it "World Trade Center attack" ? At any rate, I agree with the removal of the term "terrorist" from the title. That is was an attack, at least, is undisputed :)
"World Trade Center attack" doesn't work because of the related attack on the Pentagon, unless there is some need to distinguish the two..
Also, there were two terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center; the first killed (IIRC) five people.