[WikiEN-l] Terrorism, certainty,

and our Neutral Point of View policy Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:30:58 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401201630.58342.maveric149(a)yahoo.com> Status: RO X-Status: Q X-KMail-EncryptionState: X-KMail-SignatureState: Ed wrote: Ed, I know you mean well, but you are way off base here since nobody but extreme kooks and liars seriously state that the WTC attack was not terrorism (the other attacks on that day, as I said, are less clear). NPOV does not mandate that extreme minority views be expressed to the same extent - given the same exposure - as other views. It just states that, were relevant, those views can and should be explained and attributed. Nearly everything is disputed by somebody, but we only attribute POVs and explain them when those POVs are significant and relevant to what we are talking about. That is why the Reciprocal System of Theory (a crank theory) does not get a mention in our main articles on physics. Nor does the existence of that "theory" make us hedge our statements in the main physics articles that directly relate to RST's claims. However, mentioning RST in an article on alternative theories of physics is very relevant to the topic and should be mentioned. Then, if anything, the alternative theories article would be the one linked from the main physics article. So unless there is a serious controversy in the outside world over a fact or a statement as it relates to the article subject, then we just call a spade a spade. No, but all of ones I know of that have any significance would classify the WTC attacks as terrorism. Other cases are less clear. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)