Poor, Edmund W wrote:

Maveric said,

...

Slamming civilian commercial jets into civilian office buildings killing thousands and destroying a national icon is terrorism no matter how you parse it! I for one was depressed for a month after I saw the towers fall on live television even though I live on the opposite coast and do not directly know a single person killed that day. That's terrorism.

Even if I agree with you, it's still nothing more than your point of view (POV) and mine. Even if 50% or 80% or 95% of Americans (or Westerners in general) maintain this POV, it's still a "point of view".

A lot of this comes down to the nature of a point of view. I can sympathize with someone's month-long depression over these events, but I can hardly take that as evidence that someone responsible for events on the opposite coast is a terrorist. The real issue is the distinction between fact and opinion. That it should come up over the application of the word "terrorist" is secondary; it could have come up in relation to many other contentious term. These terms can have either a positive or negative import.

Critical thinking is one of the most important elements in the good education of a child. (As strongly as I may believe that, it is still an opinion.) It is important to learn how to read, but that skill is wasted if the child is unable to interpret what he has read and make it meaningful. Critical thinking is also important in evaluating TV toy commercials where the only factual statement contained is often, "Each sold separately." Critical thinking allows a child to think independently even when majority opinion is overwhelming; it gives the child the skill to recognize those dangerous situations when he must say, "No!"

The first lesson in critical thinking is to know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Knowing and understanding that distinction is essential to maintaining intellectual rigour; it is important to the scientific method, it is important to the development of an objective and neutral encylopedia such as we claim to be developing. It is most important in the context of evaluating those ideas which we hold most strongly.

It is not always easy to distinguish between fact and opinion, and a lot of the agreed facts themselves depend on arbitrary assumptions. Having an undisputed definition of something helps. That definition tends to be lacking in many "-isms" and the "-ists" who practise them. If there is serious opposition to our claim that something is factual, then we would do well to stop treating it as factual. In this regard we can certainly do better than resort to weasel words purporting truth by innuendo.

There is no universally agree-upon definition of terrorism, no formula into which we can "plug in" some values to distinguish what as "really" terrorism and what isn't.

That's a big part of the problem.

Even formulas which mention "innocent people" fail, because of a hot dispute over who is "innocent". Are anonymous Israeli civilians riding a bus or sitting in a caf"innocent", from the perspective of the group which sends a 'human bomb' on a 'mission' to blow them up? You and I may think so, but I gather that the Arab nationalist groups which the US labels "terrorist" regard these civilians as somehow complicit in the "crimes" of their regime.

Even "innocent" can be a loaded opinion word used with the intent of evoking an emotional response. Some will only regard the civilians in the occupied lands as complicit, while accepting that those within the internationally recognized borders have a right to be there.

Anyway, the solution is to back away from anything that smacks of official Wikipedia endorsement, when there is a hot controversy. Just figure out as accurately as we can, which groups of people (like "Americans" or "Westerners") espouse a particular POV, and say that they espouse it.

But simply saying "Americans" is inappropriate when American public opinion is divided.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that it does NOT have any particular slant on current events or history. We can get into all the in's and out's of public opinion. A conservative news outlet or radio commentator or historian can get away with cherishing a bias. He can easily twist things to support his POV; easiest way is to quote a lot of people who agree with you and omit mention of (or say nasty discrediting things about) anyone who disagrees. Liberals can (and do) join in the fun, too!

Indeed!

Unlike the Bush Administration or the New York Times, this revolutionary, ground-breaking, historically unique scholarly project -- Wikipedia -- has no axe to grind, no point of view to defend. So we can delve into the issues and report accurately about all the major and minor variations of thought on any subject, no matter how controversial.

We do have a point of view to defend, the neutral point of view. Alas, some of us don't defend it very well.

This is so wonderful, that maybe some of us are still reeling from the shock of such freedom and haven't figured out how to handle it. I'm still trying to get a grip on it, myself.

This is perhaps more true than even you may believe. Freedom is pretty shocking stuff. If freedom is taught with hierarchical techniques, in the course of which we are told that we are free and that such and such are the characteristics of freedom that we must show on an examination paper, are we really free? People who are apparently free can have a tough time with the responsibility part of it. Sometimes I read and hear things that leave me terribly pessimistic.

Ec