Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 19

message: Great video debunking the idiocy known as Loose Change.
*"Screw Loose Change", a counter-video debunking the Loose Change film
:plonk. Blue King
:Just looking at the site name is enough to debunk this pile of crap ;) Elfguy 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debunking Loose Change 

message: Is someone going to revert to the previous version? The content looks professional, but there isn't much of it! Wave of Mutilation 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: already taken care of...  is a vandal that uses edit summaries to make it look like he is helping... - Adolphus79 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism?! 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United States]] article on featured candidate nominations list 

message: What is going on here? Why the name calling, the vituperatives and other nonsense? If there are conspiracy theories and these are described in the article as such, what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility lost?

message: This talk page should be archived soon because it is becoming too long. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but the word "censure" appears here too many times for people to see. SkeenaR 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: goes up. As per discussion the neutrality of this article is disputed because of some unverified facts being presented as verified and because of ommisions of verifiable material that is in contradiction with some information presented here. SkeenaR 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: You removed all this detail, with refs, along with my (okay, it was lengthy essaying, just striving for balance) explanation, etc.  But I think it's pretty important, since this 9/11 start page has virtually nothing about the guys who actually did it.  Maybe the blockquote can go in ref notes, since it's a bit long?  Seems a disservice to not even mention the letter in the article.  Also, there needs to be something core like this to counter all the wrong western bias about cause and effect (former troops in SA, U.S. support of Israel, etc.) that is so prevalent in the article, but that is just western wishful thinking, that if only we could learn how to appease them enough, they would stop attacking us, you know.  The hijackers' letter gives better insight into what is really in their heads about flying planes into buildings, just presented as is, without commentary.  So, here it is, 
On September 28, 2001, the FBI held a Press Conference, during which they released an untranslated handwritten 4-page "hijackers' letter" written in Arabic and found in three separate copies at Dulles, the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta's suitcase. It included Islamic prayers, instructions for a last night of life, and a practical checklist of final reminders for the mission. FBI Releases Copy of 4 Page Letter Linked to HijackersFBI, Press Conference national Press Release, September 28, 2001 translated: Instructions for the Last Night, PBS Frontline, "Inside the Terror Network, tracking their personal stories."  The British newspaper The Observer published this translation, provided for The New York Times by Capital Communications Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm, and by Imad Musa, a translator. The writer of the letter may not be known. But clearly, it was found in multiple locations, and so the text was of importance to at least several of the hijackers, on the last day. Some notable excerpts: ..."Make an oath to die and renew your intentions..."... "Check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. (You must make your knife sharp and must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter). " ... "All of their equipment and gates and technology will not prevent, nor harm, except by God's will. The believers do not fear such things. ..." ... "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: 'Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.' Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty, and the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, 'Come hither, friend of God.' They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing..." ... "If you slaughter, do not cause the discomfort of those you are killing, because this is one of the practices of the prophet, peace be upon him..." ... "Do not seek revenge for yourself. Strike for God's sake..." ... "Then implement the way of the prophet in taking prisoners. Take prisoners and kill them. As Almighty God said: 'No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood... " ... "How beautiful it is for one to read God's words, such as: 'And those who prefer the afterlife over this world should fight for the sake of God.' And His words: 'Do not suppose that those who are killed for the sake of God are dead; they are alive ... '." ... "Either end your life while praying, seconds before the target, or make your last words: 'There is no God but God, Muhammad is His messenger'."
...end of hijackers' letter excerpts.  So, does at least some well-deserved part of this go back in? Steven Russell 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe check out Islamofascism or try adding a link to that article. SkeenaR 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My observation:  I came to this article looking for the basics:  Who, What, Where, When, Why.  Instead, I find myself wading through a lot of material that has to do with all sorts of extraneous concepts, alternative theories, long-term aftermaths entirely outside of Manhattan, investigations, analyses, and below, yet more argument about even further far afield things to put in here.  Granted, some of it belongs, but not at the expense of burying or moving off-page the elements of Who, What, Where, When, and Why.  And How.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So I produced excerpts of a letter, which was publicly released with great fanfare into the mainstream, no more than two and a half weeks later, by the U.S. government, a letter that the "Who" (19 ARAB  hijackers, so where is the Template:911hijack here?) had on their persons, on the day of (the "When", the very day) the attacks (the "What", that is, 50-90% of this article should be nothing more than full expansion of the mainstream proven events themselves, such as, for instance, that the letter was on the person of at least two of the hijackers), one left in the car at the airport (the "Where", airport parking lot, on the plane, in the hotel room), and the other in the Flight 93 plane upon impact, and a third left in Atta's suitcase the night before, yet there is no room here for any of this "What" or "Where" about the letter?  The "Why" is best covered on the day of the attack in the place of the attack by the attackers in the very words that they left to explain themselves, not for us as readers, but for themselves as readers explaining to themselves and justifying to themselves WHY they were flying planes into buildings.  It's as close as anybody is ever going to get to the inside of their heads.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So frankly, the suggestions that a better place for the letter is somewhere off the main page strikes me as odd.  Granted, it could use some better presentation, but this is where such material belongs.  Again, it was a critical element on the persons of the attackers as they attacked and it explained their reasonings.  And the source is highly public, highly governmental, highly verifiable, and highly mainstream.  My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to be above all, full of mainstream reputability, and not merely a balance-counterbalance of every side argument and obscure minority theory in the entire universe of fringe ideas. Just my observation, that this article has become much of the latter, and less of the former.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hijackers' letter 

message: As stated above, this article neees to get WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY back to basics, WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, and HOW.  Just basic irrefutable facts, highly mainstream, highly verifiable and highly reputable.  So I propose a major split:  Essentially the entire bottom half of this article deals with almost extraneous ideas that spring off of the attack itself.  The attack is the attack, nothing more, as the home page here for this whole thing.  This should be the place where people go on Wikipedia to get the very basics, and nothing more.  So my proposal for the split of all the bottom half extraneous material that is currently there:  It all sticks together cohesively as "Ramifications of 9-11."  Everything from cleanups, speeches, wars on terror, conspiracy theories, backstories, further agendas, world opinions, and on and on and on in a neverending series of subarticles.  But just keep this basic page to the fundamental five W's, and the H.  Feedback, please.Steven Russell 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conspiracy junk deserves almost zero attention and should be merely linked to, as I think you are suggesting. I agree that the letters and Atta info deservesa brief mention, but it appears to qualify as an article unto itself, with a link from here perhaps. Going into major detials of the letter would distract us from the focus.--MONGO 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted that different excerpts from the letter belong to different articles or areas.  My main point is that it is a key fact of the day of the attack in the place by the persons, and yet it gets entirely obliterated here in lieu of extraneous material such as conspiracy theories.  I do like the "Ramifications" as a catchall title to branch all of that other stuff off of.  As I said, I come here looking for the BASIC knowledge about that day, place, persons, time, and method.  I had a heck of a time even finding the list of attackers, which of all places should have been here.Steven Russell 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramifications of 9/11, as a proposed major split 

message: I notice the damage total is not mentioned on the article. I've read a few sources that said it was in the $20 billion range. Provided someone finds an exact, official link, I think something like that would be an important little fact for the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage total 

message: An anonymous IP added "It is important to note that the US government has supported, trained, and sold arms to al-Qaeda in the past. In fact, the US put al-Qaeda into power."  As that would be a horribly a very strong and dangerous comment to make without prior discussion, especially amid controversy, I removed it back the version of the article prior.  Kevin_b_er 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-qaeda comment removed 

message: The title should read "September 11, 2001, attacks." The year is parenthetical. It should be set off by two commas, not just one.
66.146.211.71 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the whole date September 11, 2001 is an integral part of the name. Peter Grey 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title is incorrectly punctuated 

message: I propose the following addendum: "The attacks were carried out on a Tuesday--a weekday. As such, most schools and workplaces allowed students and workers to witness the television coverage throughout the day." Also mention something about many students wishing to make telephone calls to relatives, and schools allowing this.
18.243.6.65 07:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day of the Week, etc. 

message: I do not understand why the following two sentences begin the fatality section: "One fatality was US-Israeli multi-millionaire Daniel Lewin, an influential figure in the development of the internet and a former member of an elite Israeli anti-terrorist unit. Also aboard Flight 11 the captain, John Ogonowski, is said to have been killed by terrorists before the impact."
It seems to me that the section should immediately emphasize the number of deaths. Pointing out a wealthy individual and how one particular victim was killed seems to undermine that goal; furthermore, it most likely will leave out other influential people. The safe thing could be to emphasize the number of fatalities and their location at the time of their death. Placing two people at the beginning of the section seems to lessen that emphasis. Smackme 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities section 

message: His declaration of a holy war against the United States,[citation needed] 
cite Osama bin Laden, “Declaration of War” issued 23AUG1996 [] 
There is a secondary source on PBS.org in the talk page of the wikisource page.
70.134.88.250 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility section Declaration of War citation 

message: Below is a block of text from the 9/11 Article for review. I was hoping to include a line or two referencing Molton Metal, but it may be more appropriate to re-write. Thoughts? Digiterata 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to include the above text in the article under 'Collapse of the World Trade Center'
Please respond here if you would like to comment on this inclusion. Digiterata 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now for the meat, are there any suggestions for appropriate wording referencing Molten Metal? Feedback Please Digiterata 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text under review: The Collapse

message: Hey, guys why dont you go and waste this wiki: . Im sure youll agree it reads like something i would write... --Striver 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  another wiki 

message: The disputed tag is being added to the article to reflect how this is one of the top controversial articles in Wikipedia. Elfguy 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. I see no point in applying the tag permanently to all controversial pages. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There does need to be some notice on the page to refute the baldfaced assertion that the events of September 11, 2001 were of a terrorist nature.  There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is simply not true.  --71.36.251.182 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your denial of the terrorist nature of the 9/11 attacks leaves little room for doubt that you've committed intellectual suicide. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you can find this evidence here: 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's even a link from this page! How convenient! --Mmx1 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't even go into the inadequacies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article - it is missing loads of important information.  More to the point is that the "official story" is given top billing in this, the official article, in spite of serious doubts that the "terrorist plot" was perpetrated by the "terrorists" balmed in the article.  There needs to be some prominent note at the top of this article addressing the controversy.  --71.36.251.182 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem, there is no SERIOUS DOUBT, if the doubters were SERIOUS, then they would present SERIOUS scientific analysis, not hacked-together criticism by non-notable non-experts with degrees in Theology and expertise as Software Engineers.  Morton DevonshireYo
Excluding the conspiracy theory fairy tales, which are not in good faith, there does not seem to be any genuine dispute of the content of the article. Peter Grey 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hani Hanjour was the only one initially reported as having no ticket.  Hanjour probably made the 270 degree turn because he was navigating by landmarks, as you would notice if you took a look at the final flight path.  How was he supposed to know where the top brass were or that the area he hit was reinforced?  The hijackers had knives and mace and had taken martial arts and weightlifting.  He had the requisite skills (see also 9/11 Commission Chapter 7 note #170).  Other aircraft with nonfunctioning transponders have flown over the Pentagon to the nearby Ronald Reagan International Airport, and flights go by the Pentagon daily.  The last time missile batteries were used at the Pentagon prior to 9/11 was in the early 1960s.  There's plenty of literature on the USAF response which is beyond the scope of this brief reply. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just as an example, that the collapse of a building could be deliberately caused by some improbable heat source smuggled into a building with thousands of people that melted some unknown substance that a) is not hot enough to be steel, and b) was not located near any structural component. Peter Grey 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: enough energy to pulverize a building into pyroclastic clouds of dust Well, obviously.  But feel free to share your calculation of the potential engery of the tower and how much you think the energy shortfall is. Peter Grey 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have anything not on wtc7.net?  Something from a more neutral party, or published in a major scientific journal or something?  I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just personally don't trust wtc7.net as a good neutral source on these things. JDoorjam     Talk 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Secret demolition has not ocurred many times - catastrophic failure without demolition has. All other explanations require new theories, new science. Wrong - engineers all understand it fine.  (Unlike wtc7.net and their theory that 100% of the concrete and 0% of other construction materials caused the dust cloud.) Peter Grey 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Every catastrophic failure, by definition, featured sudden onset. Peter Grey 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There wasn't any molten steel at the WTC but there was molten aluminum.  In examples I've previously cited, the buildings weren't hit by planes so they didn't have that molten aluminum. Sounds of explosions have numerous explanations that are much more plausible than bombs. The sounds could be high-voltage electrical gear/transformers, steel bolts, immense concrete floors slamming onto each other, rivets, bodies landing on cars, etc.  There were no demolition squibs; the fact that it is smoke & debris puffs is evident from the fact that they appear after the collapse begins and only after lots of movement and sagging; look at the collapse frame by frame and you will see that windows are breaking as a natural result of the collapse.  When the towers were collapsing, they created excessive pressure on each floor and blew out objects on the floors.  Again, the Twin Towers collapsed at least 63% slower than freefalls which in my book is not "near" free-fall speed.  L'Ambiance wasn't hit by a jet.  The collapse, even though it took place during construction, shows that when such a building can't support a given load it will undergo progressive collapse.  Just remember that historically, no other buildings have been hit by 500+ mph fuel-loaded passenger jets and had their trusses' fire-proofing blown off, much less had later load-bearing steel beams sheared off and vertical load-bearing core columns severed by jets.  In WTC 7 there was a 20 story gash and the bottom floor fires raged for 6 or 7 hours and had these weakened floors supporting 40+ stories, and the steel wasn't reinforced by concrete, unlike the Madrid Windsor building.  No more simplistic statements that the buildings collapsed by "fire" because there were many other factors which were historical firsts.  You can't expect other buildings with different designs to perform the same as the WTC towers.  Firefighters and others worried that One Meridian Plaza would do a pancake collapse.  McCormick Plaza shows that steel structures can collapse because of fire alone.  The partial collapse of Ronan Point is another example of a progressive collapse and had engineers worry about progressive collapse.  Gravitational collapse is a perfectly adequate explanation of the pulverized concrete. Keep in mind that less than 1/3 of the dust was made up of concrete, and that most of the dust particles were bigger than 60 microns, with up to a 5th exceeding 300 microns in size. Hoffman's calculations involve numerous flawed assumptions. The alleged energy deficit is removed if the relative humidity of the clouds' contents was slightly above 2%. Wind, etc. also contribute to the clouds' expansion, not simply heat. Heat was added from office contents, the jet impacts, the burning fuel, etc. How much of the concrete was turned into dust, anyway?  The cores were destroyed by the grinding force of the massive collapsing buildings, and lacked diagonal bracing which would've given them lateral strength. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dust gnomes, duuuuhhh.  While I was trying to find a less non-sensical answer to your question, I found this delightful non-sequitur: an analysis of WTC dust.  It's by a private contractor and not the government, so you know it's not just another Federal 9/11 dust analysis cover-up.  Cheers, JDoorjam     Talk 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The so-called intact, undamaged structure had already received an impact loading at that point and was already failing, plus most of the material was not converted and was merely behind the dust cloud. (Remember a dust cloud is mostly air.) Peter Grey 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because the same proposals get brought up time and time again and fail to reach consensus does not justify a dispute tag. --Mmx1 17:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the very fact that they do means that the tag is appropriate. Elfguy 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are people who think Evolution is false and repeatedly insist on editing the article to reflect their views does not mean the edits will meet consensus or that the article deserves a dispute tag; in fact it's pretty clear that the "disputes" are the same old ones that have, are, and will fail to meet consensus. --Mmx1 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is in compliance with Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NOR, WP:RS.  Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said before, it's not at all the same thing. Here we're dealing with actual scientific reports, things that are physically improbable, and many people having a problem with this story being presented as 'the truth' and the rest as 'insane conspiracy crackhead stuff', which is exactly the way this article is written and is very obviously being done on purpose by the 4-5 regulars here. In fact even Evolution has more space about opposing views, called 'controversy' not a demeaning term, and only some religious people have spoken against it, but most importantly no fact contraticts it, unlike here. Elfguy 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The defining characteristic of the "dispute" here is that a hypothetical conspiracy is frequently invoked when errors of fact are pointed out in the conspiracy theory narratives.  There are no good-faith disputes with this article. Peter Grey 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. There are a lot of different 'alternative theories'. Many have issues with them, but the very reason they exist is that there are so many issues with the official story. That alone means there is a dispute. The facts as presented in the article are said to not be accurate by various people here, organizations, various papers, videos, movies, media sources and foreign governments. That's what the tag is for. Elfguy 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we provide space for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, along with a brief summary and link here.  See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -Aude (talk contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: What's happened to this article? The last time I saw it it looked something like this , and the word terrorism was avoided because it's clearly a loaded term. Now we have it smattered all around the intro like some sort of propaganda campaign. I mean, honestly, "Approximately 3,000 people died in these terrorist attacks." ? You may as well say "Approximately 3,000 people died in these evil attacks by cruel-hearted, Jesus-hating Islamic boogeymen." The word is just plastered all around needlessly. I thought a long time ago people on this talk page showed significant disagreement as to its usage and decided it should only be applied by 3rd party sources, rather than by flatly defining it as terrorism. Do we lose anything by removing the word "terrorist" in the intro? Can't we just say that 3,000 people died in the attacks, or that they were coordinated attacks? I don't take issue with saying that popular media reported the acts as terrorism, but using it like we do here is POV. Sarge Baldy 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a ridiculous comment. The actions of those that committed the attacks on 9/11 are best descriped as terrorism...no other term more accurately describes the actions. It's only a loaded term to those that have some crazy notions of what right and wrong are all about.--MONGO 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attacks doesn't describe the actions? Flying planes into a building doesn't describe the actions? Terrorism doesn't describe anything, it's just a very subjective adjective tacked on so people can dismiss the motivations of the attackers entirely. It's like saying "violent attacks" instead of simply "attacks", you're not really adding anything except a negative connotation. All you're adding is a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ummm...have a look..see what the UN feels are proper definitions: We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism. --MONGO 02:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another--MONGO 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by that definition the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a very obvious example of terrorism. But we don't start that article out by calling those bombings terrorist attacks. If nothing else we need to be consistent in our use of the term. (And obviously the UN is taking a particular moral stance in that line, where Wikipedia is about maintaining a NPOV.) Sarge Baldy 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add that nonsense POV to those articles...this one is about the events of 9/11. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are acts of terrorism?...are they acts done in peacetime? If you knew anything about the events that led to the decisions to use atomic weapons on Japan the evidence would definitely indicate that lives were spared overall...not lost...and countries fight wars to win, not lose. The UN is taking a stance to define what the term means...they are oftentimes way to the left of where the U.S. stance is.--MONGO 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know very well what was going on with Japan. They were on the brink of surrender, and would have much sooner if we hadn't demanded for absolute surrender. Then we decided it was time we test our newest toys on some yellow people. As you've just shown, the UN doesn't even have a specific definition of its own. And most definitions of terrorism aren't limited to "peace time". Even if they were, Al Qaeda HAD declared war on the United States. So arguably it wasn't a time of peace, and 9/11 was no more terrorism than US military forces shelling the homes of Iraqi civilians. Sarge Baldy 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sure...they were grabbing every pitchfork they could find...so long as the Emperor said war, they were going to war. The war became more horrendus the closer we got to the mainland...connect the dots. Beware of revisionist historians.--MONGO 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think changes to Hiroshima are in order, be bold and make them, but I think terrorist is the right word for this page. It's not neutrality to pretend that one man's terrorist is another man's freedon-fighter. You seem to suggest in your comment above that anyone who would call these people terrorists would call them Jesus-hating Muslims. Are you implying that those who disagree with you are driven by some kind of religious bias, rather than by a desire for truthful presentation? Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just concerned "terrorist" is being used as a moralistic dismissal. For instance, you could say "The violent bombing killed 33 people" or you can say "The bombing killed 33 people". Both might be correct, but the first one is working from a certain moralistic vantage point. I think the overuse of the word "terrorist" here suggests it is taking a certain moral vantage point, and that it constitutes a POV. I think that users can fill in their own moral descriptions, without us needing to provide them. I think it's our job to describe rather than inscribe subjective terminology. Sarge Baldy 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "terrorist" does belong in the article, and is rightly in the first sentence; I was bold and removed it from the last sentence of the intro, however, because it was a bit redundant there and made the readability a little weird.  JDoorjam     Talk 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrorism is perfectly applicable and appropriate term to use here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is saying that it is not "applicable", the problem is to have an article that has a much more neutral point of view end avoid moralistic connotations of the facts.--Pokipsy76 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist inflation