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. Otherwise we would have to rename [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Boston Massacre]], (many, many other 'massacres'), [[Holocaust]], [[Racism]], and [[Terrorism]] itself.
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.
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.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
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
Eclecticology (Ray Saintonge) wrote in part:
Maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) wrote:
Ec 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.
I basically agree with this. Somebody else noted that the name "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" is wrong, since only 7 people were killed. But [[St. Valentine's Day]] is ambiguous, and there is no good alternative. [[St. Valentine's Day gang killing]] /would/ be nice -- if anybody actually called it that! But they don't.
With that you make it sound as though you are agreeing with me.
But I also agree with this. [[September 11 attack]] is probably enough. Certainly [[September 11, 2001 attack]] is enough. This leaves the question of [[September 11 terrorist attack]], /if/ [[September 11 attack]] is actually ambiguous; I'll address that below.
Otherwise we would have to rename [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Boston Massacre]], (many, many other 'massacres'),
Another good point about these is that they're /fixed names/. Light [[St. Valentine's Day Massacre]], they are capitalised -- not proof, but good evidence in English of some sort of standard name. There is no standard proper name for 9/11 in English yet, but there may well be in, say, 10 years. And in 10 years, if the standard proper name is [[September 11 Terrorist Attack]], then I would have to agree with that (capitalised!) title.
Although if you want my prediction for the title in 10 years: [[Nine Eleven]]. Shall we take bets? ^_^
Self-censorship is the worse kind.
I would call it restraint by avoiding inflammatory titles.
This is also a good point -- it doesn't override common names, because while [[St. Valentine's Day Massacre]] may be inflammatory, it's a /necessary/ inflammation, if we are to use a common name. The article body is the place to explain that only 7 people were killed.
But in choosing between [[September 11, 2001 attack]] and [[September 11 terrorist attack]] (under the assumption that [[September 11 attack]] is ambiguous), then I believe that Ec's point becomes important. Only article bodies can go into the depth necessary to be /truly/ NPOV -- to explain the intracies of differing opinions. But article titles can still show restraint.
Also, using dates to disambiguate historical events is just good policy (at the level of naming convention), since they almost always work.
-- Toby
Compare "September 11 Rerrorist Attack" with "Sneak Attack at Pearl Harbor".
Fred
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, 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. Otherwise we would have to rename [[My Lai Massacre]], [[Boston Massacre]], (many, many other 'massacres'), [[Holocaust]], [[Racism]], and [[Terrorism]] itself.
Speaking of massacres, a few other incidents where the term is commonly applied -- but doesn't actually fit would be the Saturday Night Massacre (where, in fact, no one died), & the St. Valentine's Day Massacre (where less than a dozen people died -- far less than at, say Katyn Wood).
For those rusty on their US history, the "Saturday Night Massacre" was an episode of Watergate, where President Nixon attempted to fire a number of lawyers investigating Watergate. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre occured when either Al Capone or one of his henchmen killed a number of members of a rival gang in Chicago.
Katyn Wood is an event in Polish history. The mass graves of a number of army officers, government officials, & other intelligensia were found in Katyn Wood. The Soviet Union claimed for many years that these people were killed by Nazi Germany; the Nazis claimed that the Soviets killed them. Communist Poland refused to discuss the event, & I have no idea if the post-Communist government has made an official statement concerning the event. I have not seen it referred to as a "massacre", though.
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.
I would recommend that we follow usage. If the word "terrorist" frequently or commonly is used to refer to an event, we either offer a link with that in the title, or put the word in the name of the article; if certain groups use the word & others don't, then that fact is mentioned in the article (& who calls it that).
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 am reminded of a saying, sometimes attributed to St. Augustine. "Without justice, what difference is there between a brigand and a king?" Almost every terrorist is a freedom fighter in someone's eyes.
Geoff
Katyn Wood is an event in Polish history. The mass graves of a number of army officers, government officials, & other intelligensia were found in Katyn Wood. The Soviet Union claimed for many years that these people were killed by Nazi Germany; the Nazis claimed that the Soviets killed them. Communist Poland refused to discuss the event, & I have no idea if the post-Communist government has made an official statement concerning the event. I have not seen it referred to as a "massacre", though.
You haven't looked it up in Wikipedia, then.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Sean Barrett wrote:
Katyn Wood is an event in Polish history. The mass graves of a number of army officers, government officials, & other intelligensia were found in Katyn Wood. The Soviet Union claimed for many years that these people were killed by Nazi Germany; the Nazis claimed that the Soviets killed them. Communist Poland refused to discuss the event, & I have no idea if the post-Communist government has made an official statement concerning the event. I have not seen it referred to as a "massacre", though.
You haven't looked it up in Wikipedia, then.
What I meant was that I haven't seen it referred to as "The Massacre of Katyn Wood". If that is the name of the article, then I'd flag it for NPOV reasons.
Of course, there's a lot of material on Wikipedia I haven't seen. And I doubt I would agree with.
Geoff