[WikiEN-l] The word 'terrorist' (was: User HectorRodriguez)

[Eric Demolli]

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 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at 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 at 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 at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l