[WikiEN-l] Sep 11 (wasL User:LanceMurdoch)

Thu Jan 15 19:37:54 UTC 2004

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>tarquin
>
>>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). 
>
It should be taken out because it is both a characterization and 
unnecesary for identifying the incident.  There are numerous other 
incidents which might be qualified as "terrorist", but where that term 
might be more hotly disputed.  By completely avoiding the term 
"terrorist", even when it seems obvious, we can avoid the need to set 
boundaries that define what is and what is not a terrorist act.

>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. 
>
I don't find anything vague about the title, and, if needed, there are 
other ways of disambiguating.  The common name naming convention should 
not be used as an excuse for overriding good judgement.

>It also supports the POV that the incident was not a terrorist act which is absurd 
>since it perfectly fits the definition. 
>
The absence of the term is neutral, and neither supports nor condemns 
the act in question.

>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). 
>
This sounds very much like saying that since titles are immune to POV, 
naming conventions should take precedence over NPOV in the naming of 
articles.  That makes no sense at all, and is inconsistent with the 
earlier statement that omitting the word would support some POV.

>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). 
>
Political correctness is not just applied to leftist causes.  There is 
just as much rightist political correctness.  Orwell was critical of 
extremes on both ends of the political spectrum.