From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] The word 'terrorist' (was: User HectorRodriguez) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:13:41 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org
There's nothing wrong with removing the word "terrorist". It's a loaded word, and probably doesn't belong in the plain text of any article other than [[terrorism]] itself.
On the other hand, if a prominent figure or body has a relevant quote, and a user suppresses that quote for no other purpose than to eliminate the word "terrorist", then this is censorship and shouldn't be encouraged.
We can say:
- Clinton called the 9/11 hijackings "terrorism" and
helped provide bi-partisan support for a military campaign to punish the "terrorists" responsible.
This way, it's not the Wikipedia which says that the hijackings or crashes or civilian deaths are acts of terror, but a particular, well-known spokesman for a large and influential group.
Ed Poor Ancient Wikipedian
Remember, NPOV isn't about making every sentence completely indisputable and wishy-washy, it's about making the article as a whole unbiased. Censoring the word "terrorist" from Wikipedia would be very destructive to it as an encyclopedia. We can use the word "terrorist" and even say that someone is a terrorist without using quotes; all we have to do is present both sides in the article. Here's my example of the same thing:
According to most Americans, the 9/11 attacks were terrorism. [later in the article] Clinton helped provide bipartisan support for a military campaign to punish the terrorists responsible. [even later in the article] Some people said that the 9/11 terrorist attacks weren't terrorism and...
Otherwise your article has sentences two times longer than they need to be and with a feeling strong of skepticism that they were terrorists.
Daniel Ehrenberg
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
I'm for a very careful use of the word "terrorist" : "X is a a terrorist"... "X was a terrorist" is more acceptable IMO. The 9/11 hijackings is terrorism, no doubt about it. Having wrote this we can spend a long time arguing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki or even Dresden. Don't doubt about the sense of my comments "Uncle Adolf" and his supporters wished for us (I mean most of the Europeans) much more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden. This is what I can write about my quest for NPOV, and I don't feel to write much more with my English language skills.
Syncerely yours. Eric Demolli.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] The word 'terrorist' (was: User HectorRodriguez)
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] The word 'terrorist' (was: User HectorRodriguez) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:13:41 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org
There's nothing wrong with removing the word "terrorist". It's a loaded word, and probably doesn't belong in the plain text of any article other than [[terrorism]] itself.
On the other hand, if a prominent figure or body has a relevant quote, and a user suppresses that quote for no other purpose than to eliminate the word "terrorist", then this is censorship and shouldn't be encouraged.
We can say:
- Clinton called the 9/11 hijackings "terrorism" and
helped provide bi-partisan support for a military campaign to punish the "terrorists" responsible.
This way, it's not the Wikipedia which says that the hijackings or crashes or civilian deaths are acts of terror, but a particular, well-known spokesman for a large and influential group.
Ed Poor Ancient Wikipedian
Remember, NPOV isn't about making every sentence completely indisputable and wishy-washy, it's about making the article as a whole unbiased. Censoring the word "terrorist" from Wikipedia would be very destructive to it as an encyclopedia. We can use the word "terrorist" and even say that someone is a terrorist without using quotes; all we have to do is present both sides in the article. Here's my example of the same thing:
According to most Americans, the 9/11 attacks were terrorism. [later in the article] Clinton helped provide bipartisan support for a military campaign to punish the terrorists responsible. [even later in the article] Some people said that the 9/11 terrorist attacks weren't terrorism and...
Otherwise your article has sentences two times longer than they need to be and with a feeling strong of skepticism that they were terrorists.
Daniel Ehrenberg
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Eric Demolli wrote:
I'm for a very careful use of the word "terrorist" : "X is a a terrorist"... "X was a terrorist" is more acceptable IMO. The 9/11 hijackings is terrorism, no doubt about it. Having wrote this we can spend a long time arguing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki or even Dresden.
I suppose my position on this is that I'd rather use the words "terrorist" and similarly-loaded words like "murder" as little as possible, because they add only opinionated connotation, and not really any factual information.
Consider: * A group of Al-Qaeda terrorists crashed a plane into the World Trade center, murdering 3500 civilians. * Members of the Islamic militant group Al-Qaeda crashed a plane into the World Trade center, killing 3500 civilians.
They contain the same information, but the second one is much more neutral, IMO, without being at all conciliatory. I think we ought to just present facts, and in many cases the facts alone are enough to damn those people who many of us would like to condemn, so we don't need to do so explicitly.
I think we should even apply this to cases like concentration camps. Most of our concentration camp articles talk about how many people were "murdered" there, which reads strangely to me. It reads like the author was trying to make a point, not neutrally imparting information. I'd prefer to say how many people were "killed" there, which hardly condones the killings either.
I do think we can use "terrorist" especially when it's informative, just not when we're trying to make it descriptive. For example, it should be mentioned that the Sept. 11 attacks touched off large-scale fear of terrorism in the US, and a "war on terrorism", and so on.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
I suppose my position on this is that I'd rather use the words "terrorist" and similarly-loaded words like "murder" as little as possible, because they add only opinionated connotation, and not really any factual information. ... I think we ought to just present facts, and in many cases the facts alone are enough to damn those people who many of us would like to condemn, so we don't need to do so explicitly. ... I do think we can use "terrorist" especially when it's informative, just not when we're trying to make it descriptive. For example, it should be mentioned that the Sept. 11 attacks touched off large-scale fear of terrorism in the US, and a "war on terrorism", and so on.
Agree with Delerium 100%.
-- Zero
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
zero 0000 wrote:
--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
I suppose my position on this is that I'd rather use the words "terrorist" and similarly-loaded words like "murder" as little as possible, because they add only opinionated connotation, and not really any factual information. ... I think we ought to just present facts, and in many cases the facts alone are enough to damn those people who many of us would like to condemn, so we don't need to do so explicitly. ... I do think we can use "terrorist" especially when it's informative, just not when we're trying to make it descriptive. For example, it should be mentioned that the Sept. 11 attacks touched off large-scale fear of terrorism in the US, and a "war on terrorism", and so on.
Agree with Delerium 100%.
I too support this. People often fail to realize how much implicit POV is implied by one's choice of words.
Ec
On 02/11/04 at 02:57 PM, Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com said:
Consider:
- A group of Al-Qaeda terrorists crashed a plane into the World Trade
center, murdering 3500 civilians.
- Members of the Islamic militant group Al-Qaeda crashed a plane into
the World Trade center, killing 3500 civilians.
They contain the same information, but the second one is much more neutral, IMO, without being at all conciliatory.
As I've indicated in earlier discussions on this topic, I agree of course with Delirium. Alas, it appears however that there is far from concensus on the matter within the community at large. An ongoing revert war has been taking place over in the first line of the article on Bin Laden:
[...] is the leader and head of al-Qaeda, widely regarded as the most extensive terrorist organization in the world
Adam Carr, for example, insists on "terrorist" while others replaces it with "militant". Adam wrote on the Talk page:
However, I don't mind the deletion of the word from the opening paragraph, provided it is not replaced with the dishonest euphemism "militant." Adam 06:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is a pity that Adam Carr isn't here on the list to defend this argument.
V.
In our efforts to be politically correct we are unable to describe al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization or East Germany as a totalitarian regime. Thus we distort reality and drift off into a fantastic world where there is no black and white, no values and ultimately a rather poor encyclopedia that can't be trusted.
Fred
From: Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:57:10 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] "militant": dishonest euphemism? (was: Re: The word 'terrorist')
As I've indicated in earlier discussions on this topic, I agree of course with Delirium. Alas, it appears however that there is far from concensus on the matter within the community at large. An ongoing revert war has been taking place over in the first line of the article on Bin Laden:
[...] is the leader and head of al-Qaeda, widely regarded as the most extensive terrorist organization in the world
Adam Carr, for example, insists on "terrorist" while others replaces it with "militant". Adam wrote on the Talk page:
However, I don't mind the deletion of the word from the opening paragraph, provided it is not replaced with the dishonest euphemism "militant." Adam 06:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is a pity that Adam Carr isn't here on the list to defend this argument.
Fred Bauder wrote
In our efforts to be politically correct we are unable to describe
al-Qaeda
as a terrorist organization or East Germany as a totalitarian regime. Thus we distort reality and drift off into a fantastic world where there is no black and white, no values and ultimately a rather poor encyclopedia that can't be trusted.
Fred
The Wikipedia I edit is rather different. It is not 'safe for professionals' in many respects, but its attempts to outline the overall structure of fields and knowledge are rather creditable. It shows an idealism rooted in the wiki concept, and a romanticism that goes back two centuries, too.
I see my dictionary defines 'militant' as 'engaged in warfare'. A euphemism only if one regards 'warfare' as a euphemism for killing people - which is arguable.
Charles
On 02/12/04 at 06:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
Thus we distort reality and drift off into a fantastic world where there is no black and white, no values [...]
I see. And where is this world where issues are black and white and values absolute???
V.
In the heart of any honorable person.
Fred
From: Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:49:47 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The integrity of Wikipedia
I see. And where is this world where issues are black and white and values absolute???
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net writes:
I see. And where is this world where issues are black and white and values absolute???
In the heart of any honorable person.
And every in single one of them, the definition as to what is black and what is white is different.
Which is somewhat problematic.
If we followed these lines, I'd end up writing Gazipedia, you'd write Fredipedia, there'd be Cuncipedia, Mavipedia each reflecting our own inate biases.
On Thursday 12 February 2004 09:13 am, Fred Bauder wrote:
I see. And where is this world where issues are black and white and values absolute???
In the heart of any honorable person.
Just a friendly reminder that extremists (Nazis, suicide bombers, etc.) are extremely fond of your idea of there being absolute black and white values. Of course _they_ are always the ones that hold the "white" ones and the others hold the "black" ones.
Best, Sascha Noyes
I agree 100% with Fred. 172 is in the process of whitewashing the bio of every dictator who has ever lived. Robert Mugabe is being portrayed as a victim of colonial oppression, he's never done anything bad in his life, apparently. The only person on Wikipedia who seems to have ever done anything wrong in Hitler, and I'm surprised we haven't let Nazis come in and make him out to be a hero. After all, saying that he's responsible for the deaths of millions of people is POV.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: In our efforts to be politically correct we are unable to describe al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization or East Germany as a totalitarian regime. Thus we distort reality and drift off into a fantastic world where there is no black and white, no values and ultimately a rather poor encyclopedia that can't be trusted.
Fred
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com writes:
I agree 100% with Fred. 172 is in the process of whitewashing the bio of every dictator who has ever lived. Robert Mugabe is being portrayed as a victim of colonial oppression, he's never done anything bad in his life, apparently.
The Mugabe article mentions that Desmond Tutu calls him a dictator, Amnesty International condemns him for human rights abuses, GWB imposed sanctions for "undermining good governance", that Mugabe is banned from the EU and that Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth.
How much extra moral authority do you think *your* opinion is going to provide?
Rick wrote
Robert Mugabe is being portrayed as a victim of colonial oppression, he's
never done anything bad in his life, apparently.
Come on - when it says ''systematic murder of civilians''. Can't take this seriously. And the sky is falling on our heads, too.
Charles