[WikiEN-l] Terrorism

Mon Jan 19 00:46:01 UTC 2004

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >"Many people regard ..." carries a strong POV wallop  It applies the
> >logical fallacy that if a significant majority consider something to be
> >true, then it must in fact be true.
>
> No it doesn't. If something is true, then it is true. If in fact a great many
> people say and think a certain way, then the statement needs to be made.

My thinking about this issue revolves around the utility of this statement.

Saying that 9/11 was considered by many people as a terrorist act is a
useful statement, because it then leads to explaining the various responses:
visible signs of patriotism in the US, a number of public shows of support
for not only the US but for the Fire Department and Police Departments of
New York City, passage of the US PATRIOT act.

Saying that Usama ben Laden is considered by many people as a terrorist
doesn't offer anything more than a possible widespread opinion -- unless it
is linked to the fact that he is currently hiding in Pakistan or Afghanistan
from the US government, who are looking for him for that very reason.
>
> >A statement founded on public
> >opinion should be subject to verification just as much as anything else.
>
> Sorry, but polls do not exist for everything. Some things are just plain
> common sense because they are views so widely held. For example, the
> statement that OBL is a terrorist or that Al-Queda is a terrorist
> organization.
>
> Of course more info is needed! Refining that we could say that they are both
> widely regarded as terrorist in the West and by nearly all national
> governments in the Arab world. That is attributing a POV to its adherents. It
> is also in line with NPOV.
>
Having written more than once words to the efect "it is widely believed that",
my excuse is that I can prove this statement, but in the press to get
_something_ into Wikipedia, I'll use those 5 words, or a variation on them.
However, I also try to qualify those words with something like: "a significant
minority, however thinks Y because" or "an eloquent minority dissents".
There are people who think Usama ben Laden is a freedom fighter, & I think
their reaons are worth noting -- although I may not agree with them.

[snip]
>
> Oh and some things are so widely held that there is no real need to be
> wishy-washy about it. For example that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist acts.
> However, as I stated on that talk page the word 'terrorist' should be taken
> out of that title for other reasons (not common as shorter title and not
> needed for disambiguation).
>
It is nice that on Wikipedia we are allowed to call a spade a spade. However,
some people misunderstand statements like this, & think we are talking about
African Americans, when we are alluding to Tacitus' desire to use lofty
language. That is where we get into nasty conflicts.

Geoff