Minimal analysis Edit

I think that the most minimal analysis of this event is necessary for the article, i don't see much usefulness in going further and explaining causes for the attack, the participants, or the wars that followed, none of those events were really mentioned onscreen. all we know from the picture is that the buildings were devastated. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

in hindsight... Edit

...while i researched this topic for the small amount of information i added about the trek connection to 9/11, i'm not so sure it belongs here...but seems appropriate somewhere in memory alpha. i dunno. Deevolution 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

removed text Edit

I have removed the following:

In the Star Trek universe, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have taken place five years after the end of the Eugenics Wars, in which Khan Noonien Singh controlled many areas of the Middle East. It is a possibility that Khan was in some way associated with the 9/11 attacks, either planning them years before or supporting Middle East terrorist groups who engaged in the attacks years later.

To speculate on the involvement of Khan, directly or indirectly, in a terrorist attack that took place 5 years after he left is just too speculative to me. Even if it had taken place when Khan was around, we have nothing at all linking the two events. We simply have to put limits on what we are going to allow for speculation, and this seems too far to me. We might as well also speculate that Braxton was somehow involved. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Khan was obviously the true perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. Before he left, Khan left a note telling his followers to "Look after the dog, water the plants, and drive some airplanes into a few buildings while I'm gone." It's all common knowledge. You need to do more research, Cobra. --From Andoria with Sarcasm

Yes, thanks for the catch. It probably is too speculative. The way its written now it just mentions Khan's departure five years before. I'm actually surprised the Enterprise producers put the twin towers footage in there becuase bringing Al-Queda into the Star Trek universe opens up a whole can of worms with regards to continuity and backstory issues. -FleetCaptain 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of it has been re-added:

In the Star Trek universe, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have taken place five years after the end of the Eugenics Wars, during which Khan Noonien Singh controlled many areas of the Middle East.

I am removing this. Here, I have to make a shout of "is it relevant?" After all, we could also have a note saying "the attack took place in New York, which was occupied by the Nazis 57 years earlier in an alternate timeline", or any number of things. The fact is, there isn't a relationship here. We don't even have stated in canon that al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks in the Trek universe. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

With Khan having once controlled "more than a quarter of your world from Asia through the Middle East" I think a piece of background about him is not harmful to this article. Maybe adding in, as mentioned about, al-Qaeda not being mentioned but probably involved and Khan's involvement dubious. -FleetCaptain 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It IS hurtful. It is adding three levels of connections that do not exist in canon. First, it is saying that these attacks had to do with al-Qaeda. Then it is saying that Khan might have had anything to do with al-Qaeda. Then it is saying that Khan might have had to do with orchestrating an al-Qaeda attack years after he left Earth. 3 levels of speculation not present in canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is protected from this little edit war until we can come to a conclusion here. First off, Khan was not linked to the WTC in canon, no reason to link him here, as as well, referencing how long something happened after something else on a page is pointless unless it is directly relevant, ie citable vs. coincidental. --Alan del Beccio 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The citation is relevant because it places the event in it's proper Trek-historical context. My reinsertion contained NO speculation whatsoever, it simply mentioned the fact that it occurred 5 years after the end of the EW, and that during the EW Khan ruled a substantial part of the ME.Capt Christopher Donovan 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been zero link established in canon between 9/11 and the Middle East. Please show me one if you have it. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See my suggested note below which I think is a very good compromise. It mentions that yes there is no canon link to AQ but in the real world they were responsible. Thus, if they were also responsbile in the ST world, they would have come out of a Middle East ruled by Khan only five years before hand. -FleetCaptain 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And see my above response on three levels of speculation. This is simply unneeded for this article, and in fact harms it. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cutting out the Khan stuff would still leave the good point that AQ is not confirmed as the preps of 9/11 in Star Trek even though they did it in the real world. Saying that wouldn't be speculation. -FleetCaptain 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OC, ALL that my reinsert said was that 9/11 occurred 5 years after the end of the EW (fact) and that during the EW, Khan controled a good part of the ME (also fact). Once again, there is no speculation whatsoever....none! The only "connection" or "correlation" is that of temporal sequencing.
I understand why you would be concerned about the issue. Referencing real world tragedies in a fictional context is always a delicate exercise. That said, you are simply reading too much into what was inserted.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Too what end then? What purpose does a note like that solve other than to speculate? I might as well ass a note saying that "the attack took place in New York, which in an alternate timeline had been occupied by the Nazis 57 year earlier". There is not purpose or reason behind a note like that, as there is no canon link between them. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To Donovan and Fleet Captain, ask yourselves this: how is the fact that the 9/11 attacks took place 5 years after Khan Singh's reign relevant to the World Trade Center? In particular, is it relevant given the fact that nothing on-screen or, as far as I know, off-screen (i.e. novels, reference works, etc.), connects Khan Singh with the 9/11 attacks? The answer, I'm afraid, is no, it is not relevant. Adding the note in the article would presume relevance when there is none, and that's where the whole speculation bit comes in. If that makes sense... --From Andoria with Love 15:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We can still cut the Khan stuff out and have a mention that the perps of the 9/11 attack, Al-queda, are not established in Star Trek thus leaving open the question of who committed the attacks in the Star Trek universe. I personally think it is way too big of a connection that Khan controlled the Middle East at one point, where AQ was based, but this isnt talked about on screen so that issue can be cut loose. BTW, why is the article still protected? Noone that I saw was edit warring. -FleetCaptain 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief note stating who the actual perpetrators were without going into speculation about Khan or what-not might be okay. To answer your next question, the article is still protected to prevent further edits until after this issue is resolved. And, for the record, there was actually an edit war between five people: after you added the note, Cobra removed it. The note was then reinserted (albeit, edited) by Captain Donovan, after which I removed it again. Then you re-added it, and finally Alan was forced to protect the page after removing the note for the final time. That's what's called an edit war. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that we can jettison direct mention of Khan (though I still feel it unnecessary), but I insist that it should at least be mentioned that 9/11 occurred 5 years after the end of the EW, as that is a matter of historical dating within the Trek Universe that implies NOTHING about who or what might have been responsible.Capt Christopher Donovan 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The one problem there is... We date the Eugenics Wars as having taken place in the mid-1990s, nothing more specific. Another question I have... who says that these events even took place on "9/11"? Or even in 2001? For all we know, in the Trek universe, they could have occurred in the midst of the EWs... -- Sulfur 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, once again... what point is there in mentioning how many years after the Eugenics Wars the event took place? Since it has nothing to do with the World Trade Center, how is it relevant? --From Andoria with Love 03:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Like Shran said, there is no relevance to this. The fact that something happened some number of years later is not relevance. If we add how long it took place after the EW, than we damn well better add "the attack took place in New York, which in an alternate timeline had been occupied by the Nazis 57 year earlier", since that is far more relevant given that we at least know it occurred in the same place. How about "this took place 62 years before first contact with the Vulcans"? That has as much relevance. How about "this took place 348 years before Wesley Crusher was born". Same relevance to the EW so far. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

People seen to missing that I am fine with cutting the Khan stuff out. Just state that Al-queda, while the instigators lf the 9/11 attack in the real world, have never been confirmed as existing in Star Trek, leaving open the possibility that some other group, as far as Star Trek is concerned, was responsible. -FleetCaptain 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of even that? There are a million things in Trek where the exact perpetrators are not stated. We have a wikipedia link for a reason, to handle this real world stuff. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of that is that the general public is aware that AQ committed the attacks, but this question remains open in Star Trek. That also isn't speculation, so it should be allowed. A one line background note stating:
The actual prepetrators of the 9/11 attacks, Al-queda, are not mentioned by name in Star Trek leaving open the possibility that it was some other group who committed the attacks that Archer witnessed in the timestream
wouldn't be harmful at all to the article since it would be a very true statement. -FleetCaptain 04:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my statement. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I read your statement. I understand. But the article should address the question of who committed the attacks as far as Star Trek is concerned. Since that question is unanswered, a background note stating that this information is unknown is appropriate here. -FleetCaptain 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should it? As I said, there are a great many things in Trek where we do not know the perpetrator, and we don't add notes about them, and we definitely don't add notes speculating about al-Qaeda. The only thing that makes this the least bit different is that it happened in the real world, but any information on that should be at Wikipedia, which we have a link to. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stating that Star Trek doesnt address the question of who committed the attacks isnt speculating about Al-queda. It simply states that the apperance of the World Trade Center bombing didn't speak on who committed the attacks as far as Star Trek is concerned. I think at this stage other editor input is needed as I think a note should be in there and you do not. Its obvious neither is going to change their mind, so time to get other people's opinions. -FleetCaptain 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this all irrelevant. We could just as well add "Star Trek never addressed who shot Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy. It never addressed who married Jacqueline Kennedy after her husband was shot, how long Fidel Castro will stay in control of Cuba or mention Margaret Thatcher's involvement in coal miners' strikes. If there IS a discrepancy between Star Trek and real life (take Pluto for example) we may address that, but adding notes about 9/11 and who could be responsbile or why or even that nothing was stated doesn't belong here. No more speculation. Now, if something was stated in any of the novels or comics, that could be added to the background part but apart from that - nada. --Jörg 07:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to make a suggestion. On other pages where the entire article essentially consists of speculation like this one, we make a bg note that reads something like the following:
No information beyond the image of the burning towers was given in the episode.
That should nip all of this in the bud, as it simply states the facts and avoids any further speculation at all. -- Sulfur 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine. I still see no harm in stating A-Q isn't mentioned in the Star Trek universe, but there is a lot of fire about that idea so it can be let go. -FleetCaptain 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to open a can of worms, but the article on Osama Bin Laden states he committed and planned the 9/11 attack. Does that chnge things as what can be said about the attacks? -FleetCaptain 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that article needs to be fixed. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Page lockingEdit

The page is locked now, why did someone do that? I thought we were all working together and having a polite discussion to improve the text. I don't think anyone was edit warring. Anyway, here is my proposed re-write.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks (al-Qaeda) are not mentioned in dialouge, leaving open to the question as to whether it was al-Qaeda or some other group who committed the attacks insofar as the Star Trek universe is concerned. In addition, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have taken place five years after the end of the Eugenics Wars, during which Khan Noonien Singh controlled many areas of the Middle East where al-Qaeda would have been based. Khan's involvement in 9/11 (if any) remains speculative.

I think that is a very good background note for the purposes of this article as it links to other areas of Star Trek. I am also sure I am not the only fan who has wondered "if 9/11 happened, how does that tie in to the Eugenics War and Khan?" It is actually quite a fascinating thing to think about it. -FleetCaptain 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I call for unprotecting. I trust people will be mature since we've talked about this and the Khan stuff is out. Just need to determine if we should mention Al-queda or not. -FleetCaptain 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is not yet over. We still have to sides demanding different bits of information, We need to finish it here before it is unprotected. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we just delete the d*mn thing? Edit

This is getting stupid. If we have to go so far to protect "canon" as to say that there is no proof that AlQ and or OBL were behind 9/11 in the Trek universe because no scene or line exists to support it, and we spend pages and pages arguing about whether or not we can even mention other Trek historical events in relation to it, then we might ought to just agree to quietly ignore it and dump the whole mess.

This is why incorporating major real-life tragedies into fictional universes is such an exercise in headaches...Capt Christopher Donovan 07:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i expect to be in the minority on this one, but i agree. i always thought it was really tacky and lame that they even inserted the image of the WTC into the episode. and i thought it was overkill to create separate pages for each image or historical event depicted within the "time stream" rather than confining references to them within that single article. it's just like pages for the supposedly canon names of production staff that appeared on dedication plaques when they were intended as jokes or filler. again, it's overkill. Deevolution 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The article looks fine now. I move for unprotection and everyone get back to normal operations. Secure from Yellow alert, set course for Starbase 123. -FleetCaptain 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To Donovan: Wow, that was quite a rant! ;)
To Deevolution: Hey, like the man himself said, if it's seen on-screen, it's canon. Of course, he also dismissed TAS as apocrypha... oh, well.
To FleetCaptain: I agree. I don't think anyone else will re-add the info back after the protection is lifted, either, otherwise it'll just be reverted and the page protected again. All that said, I personally don't think the page is fine as is, that is, if we are only going to include what's canon. If we do that, then the page should only say that the two main buildings of the WTC were smoking at one time. No date (9/11), no mention of it being a terrorist attack, and no mention of airplanes. The reason why we do include that information I think was covered on one of the president's talk pages (I think Talk:George W. Bush; I'm not actually gonna read through it to see if I'm right though :P); basically, the writers/producers meant it to be the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (since that's what it was). However, we're limited to what was seen in that image: that being the terrorist attack. If that makes sense...
You know what, it might be best to just ignore everything I just said... --From Andoria with Love 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
oh no, but the man was also kind of crazy. i'm not saying the WTC isn't clearly canon, just that it would probably be more effective as a section in the "time stream" page. as for the names...there is such a thing as taking canon too literally. Deevolution 10:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New Note about War on TerrorismEdit

I attempted to add a new note which simply stated, as it says already in the text, that no info beyond the image of the burning towers was discussed and that, while the attacks were a precursor to the War on Terrorism, the WOT isnt mentioned in Star Trek canon. There should be nothing wrong with that statement. It was in italics and states that the historical event, depicted in the image which we see on screen, is not mentioned in canon. It was reverted with the text that "there are a million things that arent mentioned in canon". Yes, thats true, but if an historical event is strongly impliled to be a real world conflict yet not mentioned in canon, giving reference to the conflict in italics notes should be perfectly acceptable (see "Brush Wars" for an example of this). -FleetCaptain 04:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Brush Wars is entirely different, as it is stating what something was supposed to be analogues to, not stating something about what was not mentioned in canon. Should we add a note to George H.W. Bush about the fact that it was never stated that he raised taxes about promising not to, but that it wasn't stated in canon? Should we add etc. etc.? --OuroborosCobra talk 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding random notes about random things is one thing (no episode of Star Trek ever showed an image of Bush signing a tax bill that I know about). Adding a specific note that the WOT isnt established in Star Trek is actual somewhat critical in this case. Imagine you are a fan who sees the twin towers burning in Storm Front. You then think "wow, that must mean that in Star Trek, the WOT happened and the US invaded Iraq". But, no it doesnt mean that. That is what this note in the background italics is saying: the image which is shown in this episode, which in the real world was the initial attack which started the War on Terrorism, gives no other information other than the two towers were burning and isnt canon proof that the War on Terrorism happened in the world of Star Trek. In that context, the note isnt harmful to this article but rather extremely helpful. -FleetCaptain 04:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that thinking that way makes it seem like you are trying to say that the WOT didn't happen in Trel, and we don't know that either. It was not said either way. We don't need a note telling people that, the fact that we are not mentioning it does that already. Adding notes about what didn't get mentioned just opens the floodgates. I don't even know why we are coming back to this, we agreed a while ago not to have a note. The least you could have done is try proposing it here first. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see we are looking at another edit war, as OC is determined to remove these comments, so I will stop for today. May I suggest we get other editor comments? My view is that if we see an image in a Star Trek episode about a SPECIFIC event which isnt mentioned in canon, there is nothing wrong with a background note saying what the event was and further stating that Star Trek doesnt go into it. -FleetCaptain 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the statement which OC has a problem with being in the article. Comments from others are needed:

Although the World Trade Center attacks were a precusor to the War on Terrorism, this conflict has have never been established as occuring in Star Trek canon. No information beyond the image of the burning towers was given in the episode.

-FleetCaptain 04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism has no relevance in Star Trek. We simply saw a few frames of the World Trade Center burning. That can be stated, eberything else that followed in the real world doesn't matter. Take other images from the time stream: We also don't and won't add that Vitruvian Man is kept in the Gallerie dell' Accademia in Venice, Italy today, or anything further about Fidel Castro. Nothing about Jimmy Carter's current whereabouts, his political decisions or whatever. As I said before, if we started including notes about What was Not seen in Trek, we'd have pages of background info. --Jörg 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There shouldnt be anything wrong with a one sentence note that simply states that the events seen in the timestream, i.e. the initial attack which started the WOT, show only the buildings burning with no other reference in any Star Trek production to the WOT itself. That is actually a very critical canon piece of information which should be in the article. If not in the article, then absolutely on the image description page. This would be much the same as in TOS: "Tomorrow is Yesterday" when an Air Force officer wears the Korean Service Medal on his uniform. There would be nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a note saying "The Air Force Captain wears the Korean Service Medal but the Korean War is not actually established in canon" or words to that effect. There would also be nothing wrong with mentioning the current whereabouts of the painting you reference or, if either of those historical figures died, adding an italics note about thier real world date of death. Same principal. -FleetCaptain 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of this discussion? Since the last time we had this discussion, we have had 10 edits to reiterate what is already said in the article's main content, which in itself is already stating more than enough information. While true, these events are "very critical" in the "real world", and you would have to be a retard living under a rock in Timbuktu not to know what the image depicts, I wholly disagree with it being "very critical" in "canon"; if it were, then it would have shaped other aspects of the series, or moreover, been directly referenced in the series. The fact that we are recognizing the image and the facts as to 'why' what is we see in the image is happening is more than sufficient explanation for something we saw for 1/50th of a second. Going into the 'why' of the 'why' is overstating the facts. That's why there is the link to wikipedia. --Alan 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its appropriate to call anyone a "retard who lives under a rock in Timbuktu". What if somebody logged on who really didnt know what that image represented and wanted to ask us? Your comment above would probably scare them away. -FleetCaptain 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC) This continues to amaze me that this much fire has been drawn to a single sentence. All I want to see is one extra sentence added to the article that just informs the readers that the major event depicted in the image, the attack which started the War on Terrorism (which has now lasted six years) isnt an established war in the Star Trek universe. This is good info, interesting info, and it allows future editors and readers to be aware of this and not write articles about the WOT. I'm not talking about changing Memory Alpha policy, nor writing pages of background data for hundreds of articles. Im talking about one one article...for one particular case. Thats all I am hoping for. -FleetCaptain 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At some point, FleetCaptain, you need to accept that no means no. There are now 2 administrators and one user who disagree with you. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My goodness, we've only been talking about this for ONE DAY! "No means no and I dont want to talk about it anymore" isn't a good way to end the conversation. It won't be back in, since there are too many people opposed to it. I dont think a single sentence would have harmed this article. To use Qs own words:
Nothing you do here will cause Galaxies to explode or the Federation to collapse. To be're not that important. (TNG: "Tapestry") -FleetCaptain 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If somebody would see the image of the burning World Trade center here, without knowing what this would be about, he could read the article we have here, which would inform him about everything that is relevant about the World Trade Center in the Trek universe (it burned at some time) and then he could click the link to the article on wikipedia which would provide him with all the information he needs. Memory Alpha isn't here to inform people about what happened on 9/11 but to inform them about what was heard or seen in Star Trek, and it's also certainly not about those things that were NOT seen or heard in Star Trek. One more time: The sentence has no relevance to this article or to MA, so it won't be included in the article. --Jörg 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Make that 3 administrators, as from judging from this section, and all the previous sections on this talk page, everyone missed Captainmike's initial comment: "I think that the most minimal analysis of this event is necessary for the article, i don't see much usefulness in going further and explaining causes for the attack, the participants, or the wars that followed, none of those events were really mentioned onscreen. all we know from the picture is that the buildings were devastated." --Alan 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If the choppers could look at the WOT reference in Awards of the American military, the WOT stuff should probably be purged from that article as well given how people feel. Lord help me for opening that article to fire, but I guess if stuff needs to be edited out, it needs to be edited out. -FleetCaptain 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Three revert ruleEdit

From above...

BTW- Is there a Three Revert Rule here? I dont want to break it and get blocked. I honestly dont know. Can someone link to the policy page? Thanks -FleetCaptain 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the followingEdit

1) "Parallels have been drawn between the events of 9/11 and past Star Trek series, with the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine duology "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost" receiving special attention. [1]"


2) "In production before but airing after the events of September 11, 2001, unintentional parallels existed between the terrorist attacks and Star Trek: Enterprise from its inception, with the Suliban taking their name from Afghanistan's Taliban. Following the attacks, some have speculated that season three's Xindi-arc was intended to loosely parallel the attacks and "post 9/11" sentiments. [2]"

==> a) Since the parallels "between the terrorist attacks and Star Trek: Enterprise" were "unintentional", I dont see why we should mention it here at all. It is just speculation and/or personal observation by Trek fans/reporters that exist in the plenty out there. If we want to get started on that, then pages will be cluttered with documentation of such "unintentional parallels" and comparisons and op-ed pages on Star Trek dedicated sites etc.

b) I dont see the "citations" to really citing and verifying anything from a production point of view except for stating someone else's personal opinion on matters and episodes that were written and shot years before 9/11. The authors on these op-ed type of articles are not part of the production or writing staff, confirming the intentions of the writers and producers etc. of any kind. They are just making their own personal observations and express their own opinions on the matter, drawing inferences and parallels between 9/11 and some DS9 episodes (that were produced before 9/11). It is their opinion.

Rick Berman got his idea of naming the Suliban after the Taliban before 9/11 and that fact is mentioned in the Suliban article already. If someone wishes to copy and paste that unto this article, while giving it context, that is fine, but that would lead to even more speculations about who the terrorists exactly were etc, and I dont think this Star Trek encyclopedia is the place for that kind of discussion and speculations, not to mention that it really doesnt belong on a "World Trade Center" page anyway. – Distantlycharmed 05:58, October 20, 2010 (UTC)