[WikiEN-l] Sep 11

[Viajero]

On 01/15/04  at 10:57 AM, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> said:

> The incident also perfectly fits the 
> definition of terrorism. So there is no reason not to use it unless it
> is  unreasonably offensive. I would, in fact, argue that *not* having
> the word  'terrorist' in the title would be unreasonably offensive (IMO,
> that would be  white-washing, or at lest sanitizing, the title). 

"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. 


V.