[WikiEN-l] Terrorism, certainty,

[Daniel Mayer]

and our Neutral Point of View policy
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:30:58 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200401201630.58342.maveric149 at yahoo.com>
Status: RO
X-Status: Q
X-KMail-EncryptionState:  
X-KMail-SignatureState:  

Ed wrote:
>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".

Ed, I know you mean well, but you are way off base here since nobody but 
extreme kooks and liars seriously state that the WTC attack was not terrorism 
(the other attacks on that day, as I said, are less clear). NPOV does not 
mandate that extreme minority views be expressed to the same extent - given 
the same exposure - as other views. It just states that, were relevant, those 
views can and should be explained and attributed. 

Nearly everything is disputed by somebody, but we only attribute POVs and 
explain them when those POVs are significant and relevant to what we are 
talking about. That is why the Reciprocal System of Theory (a crank theory) 
does not get a mention in our main articles on physics. Nor does the 
existence of that "theory" make us hedge our statements in the main physics 
articles that directly relate to RST's claims. However, mentioning RST in an 
article on alternative theories of physics is very relevant to the topic and 
should be mentioned. Then, if anything, the alternative theories article 
would be the one linked from the main physics article. 

So unless there is a serious controversy in the outside world over a fact or a 
statement as it relates to the article subject, then we just call a spade a 
spade. 

>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. 

No, but all of ones I know of that have any significance would classify the 
WTC attacks as terrorism. Other cases are less clear.   

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)