Viajero wrote:
"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries emotional baggage and implies a moral judgement (like calling someone a "vandal" in Wikipedia!). Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously incompatible with NPOV. Moreover, if we label Al Queda or Shining Path terrorists, one can make the argument for labelling the US government a terrorist organization for mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998, or causing 500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the 1990s by means of sanctions. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.
On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist" should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I am inclined to agree with him.
I disagree that the word shouldn't be used--at the very least, allegations of terrorism should be mentioned; we shouldn't just pretend the word doesn't exist, since it does, and it is widespread use. For example, [[Hamas]] should and does mention that the US and EU (and many other countries) consider it a terrorist organization. [[King David Hotel bombing]] should also mention that many people consider it a terrorist attack, since, well, they do.
-Mark