Daniel Mayer wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
It should be taken out because it is both a characterization and unnecesary for identifying the incident.
It should only be taken out if it is deemed unnecessary for identifying the incident.
With that you make it sound as though you are agreeing with me.
Otherwise we would have to rename [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Boston Massacre]], (many, many other 'massacres'),
Perhaps.
[[Holocaust]], [[Racism]], and [[Terrorism]] itself.
These are articles about the concepts themselves, and do not necessarily imply the characterization of a particular act.
There are numerous other incidents which might be qualified as "terrorist", but where that term might be more hotly disputed.
Then we dispute those! But please no blacklisting of terms. That is Newspeak and censorship.
There is ample opportunity in the body of an article to discuss whether the term is applicable. That luxury is not available in the title.
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.
Self-censorship is the worse kind.
I would call it restraint by avoiding inflammatory titles.
Ec