Talk:September 11 attacks/"Terrorist" archive

message: 1. In the words of VV, "9/11 was a terrorist attack; it does not possess any of the ambiguities which other cases do."
2. In the words of 198, "Even Prince Badar stated the attacks were terrorist." 
3. I note that we have :Category:Terrorists and other similar articles and categories, so the term is not used consistently.
4. Terrorism, noun. (Threats of) violent action for political purposes (Cambridge International), somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes (Encarta World Dictionary), the systematic use of terror (Merriam-Webster). The actions were violent and intimidating; by definition these attacks are certainly acts of terrorism. TheProject 16:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, violence in (conventional) wars are not considered part of terrorism. Could be wrong though. TheProject 04:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for calling them "terrorist attacks"

message: 1. There are many ambiguities. See below.
2. No matter how many people refer to an attack as a terrorist attack, that doesn't make it NPOV.
3. Those categories and articles should be renamed. We should consistently on use the term "terrorist" when reporting others' opinions.
4. By many of those definitions, U.S. action in WWII was terrorism. We're not going to call D-Day a terrorist attack, but it did use violence for a political purpose. (This is wrong. U.S. action in WWII did not use violence for controlling the enemy psychologically, but physically. In specific, terrorism is psychological control through fear imposited on the targets.)
:IIRC, violence in (conventional) wars are not considered part of terrorism. Could be wrong though. TheProject 04:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttals

message: * In my view, in order to maintain NPOV, we can't simply state that the attacks were terrorist, even if everyone here believes they were. Just like we can't factually state that the Nazis were wrong.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 11:52, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
** "Wrong" is a moral judgement.  "Terrorist" is a statement of fact.  Saying the Nazis committed genocide would be factual, even if "genocide" has negative connotations just as "terrorism" does. VeryVerily 11:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  A communist would probably refer to himself as a communist, and a serial killer may well refer to himself as a serial killer, but a terrorist would almost certainly never refer to himself as such, just like a communist wouldn't generaly call himself a 'piece of Marxist scum', nor a serial killer call himself a 'mass murdering bastard'. These are emotive terms, when we think of a 'Mobster', we think of a gun wielding man in a striped suit, but a 'member of the Mafia' has no such image, and might instead inspire someone to actually find out what this gentleman did, instead of relying upon a sterotypical images.
If we are talking definition here then Wiktionary defines 'Murder' as 'An act of deliberate killing'. Therefore shooting down WWII fighters could legitimetly be descirbed as murder, assuming the reason was to kill those inside. Every 'murder' in war could be legitamised away from that description by offering another rational, such as self-defence, but ultimately is not one of the aims of kiling people in war is to reduce the number of enemy soldiers, such that those who remain surrender? --NeilTarrant 12:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :We should avoid referring to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" in the article. "Terrorist" is a loaded term. (This does not prevent the article from saying "The attacks were widely described in the international media as acts of terrorism.")
#  – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:09, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
#Gzornenplatz 21:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
#NeilTarrant 12:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1: avoid the term

message: :We should refer to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" in the article because deliberate attacks on civilians for political purposes are terrorist, and the 9/11 attacks were mostly deliberate attacks on civilians.
#jguk 02:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2: Use the term

message: #  – Quadell (talk) (help) 03:16, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
# Maurreen 03:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Although this may not be my first choice, I find the Quadell Compromise acceptable.

message: #jguk 04:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quadell Compromise is unacceptable to me.

message: I sort of liked the idea of merely saying that the attacks were 'widely described as terrorist', and leaving it at that. Graft 16:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternate proposal?

message: Use "terrorist" or an appropriate variation of the word only once, in the first sentence or two, to set the context. My rationale is that the word informs a reader unfamiliar with the event that it wasn't an attack by another nation's military, or outer-space aliens, or ordinary criminals, etc. Maurreen 03:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly agree with the idea of not overusing the word. It can even come out of the lead section (replace 'terrorist attacks' with 'attacks') and just be mentioned later on in the article. jguk 17:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Agree. Neutrality (hopefully!) 21:44, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
As Maurreen says, the first sentence or two is the right place.  Dropping the word terrorist somewhere in the middle of the article makes no sense. VeryVerily 11:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate proposal No. 4

message: Limit the word “terrorist” to this sentence: "The attacks were widely described in the international press as 'terrorist attacks'."
*Support votes
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
POLL CLOSED
*Oppose votes
#jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal A

message: Use this disclaimer: This article uses terms related to terrorism. There is considerable debate as to whether this term is inherently biased. For more information, please consult the article Terrorism/POV opinions
*Support votes
#Maurreen 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal B

message: Use this disclaimer: This article uses terms related to terrorism, this should not be considered as a moral definition or a condemnation. Consult the article terrorism for reference on the term as Wikipedia uses it.
*Support votes
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
POLL CLOSED
*Oppose votes
#jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal C

message: Use "terrorist" or an appropriate variation of the word only once, in the first sentence or two, to set the context. (NOTE: This is refined in proposal I.)
*Support votes
#Maurreen 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal D

message: Remove word "terrorist" from the lead section. Use it occasionally, but sparingly, in rest of article.
*Support votes
#jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal E

message: Use word "terrorist" in first paragraph to set the scene. Then use it occasionally, but sparingly, in rest of article (i.e. not a complete ban).
*Support votes
#jguk 07:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal F

message: Don't limit the use of the term "terrorist" anywhere in the article, don't include a disclaimer.
*Support votes
#RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Lokifer 08:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal G

message: Remove all definitive instances of the word terrorism. The word can still be used in other contexts (e.g. "American media commonly reported the attacks as terrorism").
*Support votes
#Sarge Baldy 08:28, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Gzornenplatz 09:18, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Neutrality (hopefully!) 18:07, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
#dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 90%+ of Germans during WWII were Nazis, so what kind of logic is that? 216.153.214.94 08:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no they werent The bellman 02:19, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
*Capitulation to the terrorists, not a compromise.  RickK 08:30, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
* Ditto RickK 216.153.214.94 08:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal H

message: (This is a refinement of Proposal D).
Describe the attacks or attackers as "terrorist" or an appropriate variation of the word only once, in the first sentence or two, to set the context. 
*Support votes
#Maurreen 09:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal I

message: (refinement of F) Use word "terrorist" in first paragraph to set the scene. Then use it occasionally, in rest of article where a suitable synonym can not be found, or is overly-cumbersome(i.e. not a complete ban).
*Support votes
# RickK 20:21, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
POLL CLOSED
*Oppose votes
#Sarge Baldy 03:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
#Shane King 03:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
#dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal J

message: Develop a coherent and sitewide policy for the use of the word terrorist, rather than treating this page as special. 
*Support votes
#Shane King 03:36, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
#Sarge Baldy 03:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
#VeryVerily 03:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal K

message: Suggestion - a refinement of H with similar aims to I: remove the unqualified adjective "terrorist" from the first sentence, then add a second sentence on the lines of:
There was immediate and almost universal international condemnation of these attacks as a horrendous act of terrorism.
*Support votes
#dave souza 13:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal L