Talk:The Pentagon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Federal Office Building #1"

My understanding is that the Pentagon is (or perhaps was) officially designated "Federal Office Building #1", much as the nearby Navy Annex is FOB2. Alas, I can't find a reference to support this. Anyone find a reputable cite? Risacher (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Arlington Farms

From the text and the road map it can be guessed that the original "Arlington Farms" site probably would have been about 2000ft roughly to the northwest of the present Pentagon site. It would be nice to have some definitive information on this matter in the article.--BjKa (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Building uses

I see very little in the article about how the Pentagon is actually used by the Department of Defense and/or the various branches of the U.S. military. Obviously, some of that information is classified, but I would expect much of it is not. Dfeuer (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I second that.--96.229.210.168 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pentagon → Pentagon (Washington, D.C.) – The current name "The Pentagon" violates Wikipedia naming standards. As a general rule article names should not start with The (unless they are the literal title of some piece of literature or some work of art). In particular trying to disambiguate titles based on whether they begin with The or not is bad practice. --173.174.57.131 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I have taken the liberty of fixing the typo in your proposed title. Yes, it is general naming practice not to use "The" in the title, unless "The" is capitalised in running text throughout (WP:THE). In this case, however, the "The" is actually serving as disambiguation and, in my opinion, it is a more natural disambiguation than adding "Washington, D.C." in parentheses. As one of the key naming criteria at WP:AT is naturalness, that is why I feel the current title is more appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The definite article is part of the name, per Jens. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, this is one of those less usual cases in which "the" is a fixed part of the name. NoeticaTea? 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; classic WP:IAR case. Making this change does not improve the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Powers T 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, the building is in Arlington County, not DC. Pentagon (Arlington County) would only confuse everyone. Even if the building was in DC, this would still be a poor way to disambiguate because it suggests the existence of pentagons in other cities. If there is a disambiguation issue, it is the shape that needs to be disambiguated. Compare here and here. Kauffner (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
These are gratuitous arguments and I suspect the above realize it. WP:THE specifically gives as an example "The White House" as an improper title. How is this different from "The Pentagon"? The WP:IAR argument is even more appalling. WP:IAR does not say "as long as somebody has done it one way, don't change it unless there is an earth-shattering reason". Either you believe there is a valid reason for consistent standards or you don't. --192.88.168.34 (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
And the argument about "the" being commonly capitalized in running text is false (see, for example, this article). --192.88.168.34 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
What about the fact that the building isn't located in DC? Kauffner (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Easy to fix, don't you think? Pentagon (Arlington County), Pentagon (Virgina), Pentagon (US government building), ...-87.142.207.156 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a closer look at the argument:

  • Jenks24 says that "the" should be capitalized if it "would be capitalized in running text", as per WP:THE. Well, it wouldn't in this case. Take a look at these sources: BBC, Washington Post and USA Today. All of them, an every other source I could find, use a lower-case "the", indicating that they don't regard the article as part of the name. Your argument, while valid, does not apply to the Pentagon. (nb: All sources use capitalized "The" in other cases: BBC, Washington Post, USA Today)
  • Jenks24 adds that "the 'The' is actually serving as disambiguation", claiming that that would be "more natural". Well, I call bullshit on that. A single capitalized letter is a terrible disambig, truly, utterly bad, almost as bad as you can get. Your "feeling" is really worth very, very little in Wikipedia, and you should know that. (Oh, and I have taken the liberty of fixing the typo in your statement. Apparently, you like such thing to be pointed out. (I don't.))
  • Whether or not a disambig is "natural" is at best secondary (and very hard to evidence). Many items of articles are "naturally" called this or that in different circumstances, that does mean that the article would be called that way. Disambigs are meant to be clear above all else.
  • Ohconfucius claims (and Noetica repeats) that "the definite article is part of the name". Sources, please. I named some showing the opposite.
  • LtPowers says that "making this change does not improve the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form." - I disagree. WP:THE provides consistent standards, which makes it easier for users to read Wikipedia.
  • WP:IAR is not a reason in itself to ignore rules, and so far none of the other reasons withstood scrutiny.
  • Kauffner claims that "Pentagon (Arlington County) would only confuse everyone." Well, that remains to be seen, but if Wikipedia would prefer a confusion-free experience over facts, that would be news to me. Wikipedia should teach facts, not support preconceived opinions.

By the way, do you know who does not use a capitalized article? The Pentagon Homepage-87.142.207.156 (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Pentagon and Osama bin Laden

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: I condemn any terrorist act `Al Qaeda, including the attack on the World Trade towers, the popular Twins, but the greatest "success" of Osama bin Laden was an attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. year. Thank God that the U.S. military killed him and threw into the sea, so that his grave is unknown.78.2.109.64 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New Intelligence Agency

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The Pentagon established a new intelligence agency. A total of 27 in U.S. Its task will be the adoption of global long-term strategic analyses and assesstment and special emphasis will be on monitoring of China as an economy that "treatens" American global primacy. 93.137.38.80 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Operating budget?

The FBI's budget is posted. Is The Pentagon's budget publicly available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.189.132 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

pentagon Address or legal description

Can anyone find the street address or legal description of the pentagon reservation?

It says 240 acres, but it has to be in the land records system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Coord template in infobox

For the infobox, I commented the coordinates parameter and uncommented the latitude and longitude parameters. The map only seems to work when latitude and longitude are specified, and specifying both latitude/longitude and coordinates produces duplicate templates. --Apollo1758 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC) AND PETGOMN Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref>

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Pentagon. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on The Pentagon. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

photo

Just uploaded this photo from 1953:

The pentagon in 1953

Chastize.

20, 30+ years ago the pentagons brain team came up with a phrase:

"Let God sort them out".

For most any whom have a clear notion of reality, this phrase is an aberration when used out of context, the question of the ´which´ becoming: ´How in haeven and hell, are you going to ask God to sort them out, when it is NOT Gods duty to do so, but yours´. ´Aren´t you man enough to do so, for having to state that what is for most any a question between a woman and God´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Project for an American Legion Post

To Whom it may Concern; My name is Paul Brooking,and I NEED HELP for an IMPORTANT PROJECT for the American Legion. 

I was Charged with the DUTY of the Post of a Redesign AND Rebuild of Their Veterans Memorial Park. I was Hoping that I could recieve Your Help in  the matter.I can be contacted at ( No.1SnowMan@yahoo.com ) or on FaceBook.

Thank You, Sincerrly; Paul Brooking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.103.87 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming violation

Requested move 30 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move (closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


The Pentagon → Pentagon (U.S. Department of Defense) – Current name violates MOS and is inconsistent with WP conventions ("The" should not be part of the title). 2605:6000:EC16:C000:8C54:B8BC:82CF:359B (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No "The"

Using "The" as the first word of an article title is always inappropriate unless it is the proper name of a work of art. It is otherwise not allowed, as can be seen in the following article titles:

It appears the reason this was done originally as a way to disambiguate with the Pentagon article. This, of course, was the wrong way to do it.

-- MC

  • Oppose. The building is always referred to as "the Pentagon", not simply "Pentagon", and that's a perfectly good way to disambiguate from "pentagon". It's more concise, recognizable and natural than the proposal, per policy at WP:AT, and meets guideline at WP:THE which states "If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article." Station1 (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per above In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal is not a properly constructed disambiguator. Pentagon (building) would be regular under the guideline. All the same, I don't see any pressing need to change the title. Whiff of greatness (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: As an additional point of comparison, the title of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is Pentagon. This is consistent with WP:THE. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    EB appears not to have an article about the geometric shape like we do. Station1 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    That's not really the point, though. The goal of MOS is to have a consistent style. If we say that every time there is something unique about a topic the rules do not apply to it, then the rules do not mean anything. The point here is that this is not an appropriate way to title an article so we should use an appropriate means of disambiguation. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    No one is saying rules do not apply. I cited both policy and guidelines in my !vote above. You seem to be looking at the second condition of WP:THE rather than the first condition, quoted above. Because we have an article about the geometric shape at "pentagon", "The Pentagon" is a perfectly appropriate way to title this article. It's almost as if the MOS guideline had been written just for this situation. Station1 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Whiff of greatness. -- Acefitt 19:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. WP:THE clearly states that "The Pentagon" is an acceptable name, so the nominator's MOS rationale is invalid.  ONR  (talk)  01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correct name for the previous headquarters of the War Department

This article claims that prior to the construction of the Pentagon, the Department of War was headquartered in the "Greggory Building" on the National Mall. However, no other article in Wikipedia references a building with that name. Instead, there are multiple other articles claiming the headquarters was in the Munitions Building on the National Mall.

So, what is the correct name for the previous headquarters: Greggory Building or Munitions Building? Or are they the same thing?

In any case, it appears some articles should be updated with the correct information. 173.28.115.32 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. Good catch! The change was made on 5 Oct 2011 by an anonymous editor (perhaps named Greggory?) from a now-blocked IP address registered to a school in Florida. I've restored the correct name of Munitions Building. A good reminder that every fact on WP needs to be verifiable. Thanks for posting here. Station1 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Layout walking time

This statement: It is possible for a person to walk between any two points in the Pentagon in less than seven minutes.

Is attributed to this source: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/04/pentagon.shooting/index.html

However, the source appears to include a poorly interpreted misstatement of what is described on the Pentagon's information site: https://pentagontours.osd.mil/Tours/facts-navigating.jsp

Despite the Pentagon's massive size, the average time to walk between two points is only about seven minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.159.63.241 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Pentagon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Goldberg is online at Hathitrust...

...and a good deal more authoritative, and stable, than some of the other sources used. Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Goldberg is a goldmine. A mountain of gold, you might even say. EEng 01:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent caption war

I think we should take both points of view here into account, and add a slightly fuller label, which adds useful information rather than stuff which is dead obvious. Noting this is the river side, which faces DC, and is, or at least was, the formal face of the building might be useful, if kept brief. Qwirkle (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, where else should we have a war if not the Pentagon? [1] EEng 21:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
”You can’t fight in here! this is the War Room!” Qwirkle (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there an echo in here? EEng 01:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Missed the link, but got the reference. Oddly enough, just watched this last night, for the umpteenth time. In this era of the Bonfires of the Manatee, it’s a grimmer thing. Qwirkle (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh! The huge manatee! And have you visited The Museums lately? EEng 02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Height change

Why change the height from 77 to 71 feet on Jan 10? I see zero reason to change it, as there is no website I have found saying a building can shrink. Also, only one conspiracy website had an article about the change. Give me the reason why you changed it. Now, I have changed it back, since it makes no sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.226.179 (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Goldberg’s “The Pentagon: the first fifty years”, an authoritative cite if ever there were one, gives the lower figure. Barring some explanation of how the building grow’ed (like Topsy), it should stay at a reliably sourced figure. Qwirkle (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please change height back to 77 FT

I want the actual height of the Penbtagon, 77ft 3.5in, back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.226.179 (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Biggest building

Is the Pentagon still the biggest office building? I see in the graphic that "Apple Park" appears larger. Perhaps there's square footage to consider. Or height. It's entirely possible that Apple Park might occupy a larger footprint, but that it still doesn't match the square footage for floor space of the Pentagon. Or maybe Apple Park is considered both a "research facility" and an "office building," while the Pentagon is just an "office building," and so when it comes to just "office buildings," the Pentagon is larger. Ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.204.8 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

According to their respective WP article, the Pentagon has 6,636,360 square feet of floor space, while Apple Park has 2,800,000 sq ft. Station1 (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Error in references/notes

Reference 50 to the LA Times is incorrectly formatted.

Referenced article The Pentagon in Popular Culture doesn't exist and hasn't ever existed, according to its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flubunga (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed both. Thanks for pointing them out. Station1 (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Arlington Historical Society: The Destruction of East Arlington

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE6N9x9jMiw

Arlington TV, published 7 April 2014. Video 1:07:42.

"East Arlington and Queen City were long-standing African-American communities in Arlington Virginia. When the Pentagon was built in 1941, the residents were displaced under eminent domain and the communities were razed. Dr. Nancy Perry tells the story of East Arlington in a talk to the Arlington Historical Society and some of the former residents of the community were present to share their memories."

--Helium4 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicknamed “Hell’s Bottom”. Urban renewal? 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Direction

“American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the western side of the building,”

Er...which side is the west side? 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:B0C0:26F1:9A03:24CF (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The west wide faces South Washington Boulevard and beyond. There is a 9-11 memorial in front of the west side. Sildemund (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hell’s Bottom

The article says all the existing shops and homes were cleared to make way for the building. Do we know if the people living there were compensated fairly? Would be interesting to note in the article either way, if known. -- Pythagimedes (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Here are some sources if anyone wants to do some research: Eminent domain destroys a community: leveling East Arlington to make way for the Pentagon, The Destruction of East Arlington (Queen City) (2013), "Right Out Our Front Door": The Pentagon, East Arlington and Queen City. - Station1 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

dmy format

Why is this article in dmy? It uses American English and is about an American site. Standard date format in the U.S. is mdy. Thanks Packer1028 (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is because WP:MILFORMAT. Garuda28 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
per WP:MOSNUM either dmy or mdy is acceptable on Wikipedia, but the standard military use of dmy has likely impacted this article.EdJF (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Largest office building

This article says that the Pentagon is "the world's largest office building,," however, following the link for "largest office building" leads to an article that says the the Octagon in Egypt is the largest office building in the world. On the other hand, following the link on that page, for the Octagon, leads to a page the refers to it as the largest office complex in the world, mentioning the it is comprised of the ten buildings. Somebody here must be mistaken. Rdvaldesdapena (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement that the Pentagon is "the world's largest office building" is supported by two citations in the article. One is to a website operated by Architect Week magazine, which has been dead since 2008. The other site, dead since 2015, was operated by the Department of Defense, and states that the Pentagon is "one of the world's largest office buildings." An article in Architect's Journal on 27 August 2015 also calls the the Pentagon "the world's largest office building." I will add the last to the article. It is quite clear that the Egyptian Octagon consists of ten separate buildings (see this). I will work on fixing that article, and the Largest Buildings list. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. - Donald Albury 17:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Information to add to this article: information about what is in the central courtyard of The Pentagon. Are there trees, lawns, and other vegetation? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"The Pentagon became the only building in Virginia where segregation laws (which remained in force until 1965) were not enforced."

Really, the *only* building? Virginia military facilities didn't desegregate in 1948 like the rest of the armed forces did? There were no other federal properties that ignored Virginia's laws? No places run by pro-civil rights people that were too small or too private for police to notice that segregation wasn't being maintained 100% of the time? Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Segregated Bathrooms

This sentence remains in the article as of today: "The side-by-side sets of restrooms still exist, but have been used by all since they were built." This has not been true for probably ten years or more. Every part of the Pentagon has been remodeled and the dual-bathroom situation doesn't exist any longer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:2208:1900:5090:A3A9:1FA6:51B5 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable source that states that? Also, please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). New sections should be placed at the bottom of a talk page. - Donald Albury 17:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Number of victims?

At the beginning of the text it is informed 189, however on the Pentagon website we see that the number entered is 184. Which one is correct? https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2771606/austin-milley-call-on-americans-to-remember-honor-911-victims/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.125.174.41 (talk • contribs)

The DOD website cited as the source of the 189 number no longer mentions the number of victims, and I had to dig down a couple of layers to reach a page that now says there were 184 victims. As the article breaks the number of victims down into those on the aircraft and those on the ground, it would be nice to find a reliable source that also gives the breakdown. A USAToday article here says 125 in the Pentagon and 59 on the plane died. The WP article American Airlines Flight 77 states that 64 on the plane and 125 in the Pentagon died, while citing the above USAToday article, so it looks like we need to check all of the WP articles related to 9/11 to find errors and inconsistencies. - Donald Albury 20:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And now I think there is a difference in saying there were 184 victims and that 189 died, as the five hijackers are not being counted as victims. I'm holding off on making any more changes until I have found reliable sources that make that distinction clear. - Donald Albury 21:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

American English

Why does this article use British date order (dd/mm/yyyy) instead of American date order (mm/dd/yyyy)? It is supposed to use American English, according to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.215.109 (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The US military uses the dd/mmm/yyyy format for many purposes. See Date-time group#Military Date Time Group. - Donald Albury 11:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pentagon/Archive_3&oldid=1190633488"