Fred Bauder wrote
We could say that in war sometimes the tactic of terrorizing the civilian population or governmental authorities is used. See [[Shock and awe]]
which
is, I guess, intended to terrorize military forces. It would seem by this operational definition that the 911 attack had that intent, at least the Trade Center Towers portion with respect to the American population.
In writing history on the basis of intention, one is stuck with trying to justify inference of that intention. That's a general problem, though. Even to call someone a 'reformer' moves from the idea of change to the supposed purpose; even to say a government introduces drugs legisation in order to deal with a social problem assumes something.
I'm not one who has any great problem with the 'terrorist' term. The inference that the 9/11 attacks were by terrorists seems stronger than that Osama wanted to take credit for ordering them; the inference that Osama wanted to take that credit seems stronger than the inference that the attacks were by or on behalf of Al-Qaida; and the evidence that the attacks were (in some way) Al-Qaida seems very strong, by now. The inference that the subsequent anthrax attacks in the USA were also terrorist in intention also seems quite strong; no one I think can say just what those were intended to do, though, with any degree of certainty. I mention this contrast to keep a perspective - could 'just' have been a deranged person.
To return to the integrity issue - I wouldn't use the Wikipedia articles as reference for contemporary history, except as casual reading. That's because 'caveat emptor' applies here. I don't think that the arguments brought forward really argue a lack of integrity, as things stand. Which is not to say that there aren't too many POV edits.
Charles