I'm for a very careful use of the word "terrorist" :
"X is a a terrorist"...
"X was a terrorist" is more acceptable IMO.
The 9/11 hijackings is terrorism, no doubt about it.
Having wrote this we can spend a long time arguing about Hiroshima and
Nagasaki or even Dresden.
Don't doubt about the sense of my comments "Uncle Adolf" and his supporters
wished for us (I mean most of the Europeans) much more than Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and Dresden.
This is what I can write about my quest for NPOV, and I don't feel to write
much more with my English language skills.
Syncerely yours.
Eric Demolli.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:33 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] The word 'terrorist' (was: User HectorRodriguez)
From:
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] The word 'terrorist' (was: User
HectorRodriguez)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:13:41 -0500
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
There's nothing wrong with removing the word
"terrorist". It's a loaded
word, and probably doesn't belong in the plain text
of any article other
than [[terrorism]] itself.
On the other hand, if a prominent figure or body has
a relevant quote,
and a user suppresses that quote for no other
purpose than to eliminate
the word "terrorist", then this is censorship and
shouldn't be
encouraged.
We can say:
* Clinton called the 9/11 hijackings "terrorism" and
helped provide
bi-partisan support for a military campaign to
punish the "terrorists"
responsible.
This way, it's not the Wikipedia which says that the
hijackings or
crashes or civilian deaths are acts of terror, but a
particular,
well-known spokesman for a large and influential
group.
Ed Poor
Ancient Wikipedian
Remember, NPOV isn't about making every sentence
completely indisputable and wishy-washy, it's about
making the article as a whole unbiased. Censoring the
word "terrorist" from Wikipedia would be very
destructive to it as an encyclopedia. We can use the
word "terrorist" and even say that someone is a
terrorist without using quotes; all we have to do is
present both sides in the article. Here's my example
of the same thing:
According to most Americans, the 9/11 attacks were
terrorism.
[later in the article] Clinton helped provide
bipartisan support for a military campaign to punish
the terrorists responsible.
[even later in the article] Some people said that the
9/11 terrorist attacks weren't terrorism and...
Otherwise your article has sentences two times longer
than they need to be and with a feeling strong of
skepticism that they were terrorists.
Daniel Ehrenberg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l