[WikiEN-l] Terrorism

[Ray Saintonge]

zero 0000 wrote:

>>>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.
>>>
>Since my remark indicated above has now been quoted several time,
>I thought I might explain it.  I don't -really- think that
>"terrorism", or any other word, should be banned.  Rather, I was
>making a comment on the usage of the word in Wikipedia: in my
>opinion it is misused so much that we would be better off without
>any uses at all.  However, of course the problem should be tackled
>by education and not by legislation.
>
I agree.  "Terrorism", however, is not the only word in this class, 
 Using them perpetrates misunderstanding.

>Let me suggest a golden rule that might be applied to many issues
>in addition to this one:
>  Golden Rule: Tell the reader what the facts are;
>  don't tell the reader what to think about them.
>According to this criterion, some usages of "terrorism" are just
>fine: "The US State Department added Microsoft Corporation to its
>list of terrorist organizations".  Some usages are NOT fine:
>"A Microsoft terrorist blew himself up at the 2007 Apple
>Convention, killing 27 innocent Mac-heads".  The reason I don't
>like this usage of "terrorist" is that all the information in the
>sentence is still there if the word is removed.  Actually the
>word was used to sneak the writer's opinion into the sentence.
>We should just present the facts and allow the reader to form
>the opinions.
>
This is a good approach.

>Other uses of "terrorism" in Wikipedia just make me cringe.
>"Many people regard this to be terrorism" is about my least
>favorite. In my view the majority of similar sentences in
>Wikipedia were put there by people who wanted to insert their
>own opinions.  They knew they couldn't write "It is terrorism"
>or "I think it is terrorism" so they wrote "Many people regard..."
>instead.  Of course if a key aspect of the topic of the article
>is public opinion that would be a different situation (but then
>I'd hope to see some actual opinion poll data or something).
>
"Many people regard ..." carries a strong POV wallop  It applies the 
logical fallacy that if a significant majority consider something to be 
true, then it must in fact be true.  A statement founded on public 
opinion should be subject to verification just as much as anything else.

Ec