User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate

This is a collection of the debate about the guideline on WP:Manual of Style (words to watch) (previously, WP:Words to Avoid)—specifically, whether and to what extent the terms terrorism and freedom fighter should be used as factual on Wikipedia (that is, not attributed to specific sources).

This page is intended to help interested users determine whether WP:Manual of Style (words to watch) reflects real consensus backed by sufficient time and sufficient debate by a sufficient fraction of the Wikipedia community. All of the discussion (excepting the overview section below) were copied from debate at WT:Manual of Style (words to watch) and its predecessor, WP:Words to Avoid. All relevant discussion was copied, including arguments on both sides. This way, it is intended to provide a simple, neutral collection of debate devoid of any analysis.

Presently, the guideline states:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious. If they are not in wide use by authoritative sources, use a more specific term such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage taker, or kidnapper. If none of these apply, use a more neutral, general word such as insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, or militant.

There is consensus that it is encyclopedic and neutral to quote organizations and persons calling a group or person a terrorist, or an action terrorism. This collection pertains only to non-attributed use of the terms. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments and then-consensus, copied from WP:Designated terrorist organizations

There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description or an opinion. Designated terrorist organizations are non-governmental organizations that currently are designated by a law monopolist as a terrorist organization.

Law monopolist organizations for the purpose of this category are bodies where designation by that body would be expected to have a significant impact on the group, or people wishing to conduct business with the group.

and other similar governmental and supra-governmental bodies.

Articles should only be included on this page is there is sufficient sourced verifiable information on their article page to demonstrate that they have been designated as a terrorist organization by a suitable body.

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person." Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Wikipedia has handled terrorism can be found at:

Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is an international Islamic fundamentalist organization... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..."
Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Ireland, the US] and many other countries..."
Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."

Arguments for describing an entity as terrorist

Arguments for:

It's a legitimate word and dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments. For example, US army manual provides a brief definition saying that "terror is the calculated use of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear".
The term does not reflect a bias towards any political orientation, as it refers to the methods and not to the opinions and beliefs shared by the terrorist group. For example, both left-wing groups trying to conduct revolution and right-wing racist groups trying to stop immigration may be termed terrorist.
Given a consistent definition, and entire body of facts, it is possible to unambiguously decide whether certain methods are terrorist or not. A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which has been used in Wikipedia, might be illuminating.
Unlike traditional media, Wikipedia can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, terrorism is a good example; it's cross-linked to asymmetric warfare and doublespeak and guerrilla and assassin, etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that—say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.
The fact that the term is often misused does not mean that it should not be used at all.

Arguments against describing an organization as terrorist

The word "Terrorist" is pejorative. Regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to a person, a group, or our enemy, doing so is not encyclopedic. For example, even if everyone were to agree that Bill Clinton is evil, we can't make an article entitled "the evil Bill Clinton." Doing so is not encyclopedic.
The word "terrorism" describes not just certain methods, but also a negative bias. The set of methods falling under terrorism is preferrably called "defence" and "counter terrorism" by the entities when describing their own actions. Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy has a definition very close to terrorist methods.
There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist". If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents call them, we would have to include:

Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, Chechen rebels, CIA, forcible colonization of lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Iran, Iraq, Israel, Osama bin Laden, Palestine Liberation Organization, Resistance movement during World War II., the American Revolutionary Sons of Liberty, Syria, Tamil Tigers, Timothy McVeigh, United States.

These examples also suggest the standards for applying the label depend upon perspective and are not consistent.

Copied0, dated 2004

(about Boston Tea Party): What on earth are you talking about?? Did they kill any civilians by any chance? By this logic you'll be calling a pickpocket a terrorist soon. I urge you to show any real evidence to the claim that labels of "terrorist" often depend on whether the terrorists were successful in their efforts. --AV

user:Lee M re: Boston Tea Party "terrorists": facetious reply: They probably poisoned a few innocent fish....

Attacks on property, without killing or injuring anyone, could still be considered terrorism. Suppose instead of flying planes into the WTC, they had placed a massive bomb in the basement, set up in such a way that it would go off in two days, and no one could possibly remove or disable it without setting it off. They then tell the authorities. The authorities evacuate the WTC and surrounding buildings. The bombs go off two days later, destroying completely the WTC, but no one gets killed or injured, but billions of dollars of economic damage are caused. The terrorists release a communique saying "this is payback for [insert your favourite U.S. misdeed here]". Wouldn't that be terrorism? -- SJK

The Earth Liberation Front does stuff like that on a small scale, and they "are terrorists" according to the FBI, but clearly not according to the DOD, who is interested only in groups that do bodily harm. Presumably if the "economic damage" (whatever that is) was extreme, it could be argued to have done bodily harm, e.g. people shooting themselves for losing jobs, etc., but by that logic so did the Enron collapse, and the DOD would have to go bomb office towers in Houston or Chicago. Definitions of "terrorism" that don't require direct bodily harm to non-combatants are simply broken - the Boston Tea Party and the Earth Liberation Front don't qualify.

Wanted ? Here it is: do you know a single person who calls Resistance Movement during WWII "terrorists" ? Taw

Sorry I don't have a hard cite on this, but I seem to recall that the Nazis actually did call the resistance fighters terrorists. The Nazis lost. Therefore we say that the resistance fighters were "freedom fighters" not "terrorists".

correct.

Sorry, all wrong. First, we don't call them freedom fighters, we call them resistance fighters. Second, we don't call them terrorists not because they won, but because they weren't. If Nazis called them terrorists (and that is yet to be shown), they were simply wrong. --AV

Sorry again, terrorists are the ones who use terror. Very simple, so why not use that word when it fits?

all governments use terror by definition - terror of law enforcement and covert action by the military, even-handed or otherwise, which is also used against civilians, and may well terrify them, and be intended to do so. The issue is legal vs. illegal terror, not terror vs. not, when the word "terror" is used by governments. But governments can't comprehend a world where they aren't doling out the terror.

Reagan called the "Contra" characters "freedom fighters", but they were arguably terrorists. - 24

"It's a legitimate word with well-defined meaning. Dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing bodily harm for political reasons without actually being a government." When governments accuse each other of "[state terror]?" you are over the line into political science and no definition will help you."

To describe this as utterly ridiculous would be to severly understate. This definition would say that a guerrila war conducted exclusively against military targets would be, on the part of the rebels, terrorism, and on the part of the government, a war. Even if the rebels attacked non-military targets in an illegal way you would have to say they are guilty of war crimes, not terrorism, and the law is very clear on this point. If you do not see how this word has been corrupted by political interests, if you are not aware of how the U.S. has come up with lists of terrorist organisations based in chief on its own political interests, even including groups such as the CSRP, which is purely involved in advocacy (of course, it mostly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Fujimori regime the PCP was battling in that time), you are guilty of overwhelming naivete. -- Daniel C. Boyer

The definition of terrorism is "the use of force or destruction of property to advance a political or religious cause." The Boston Tea Party was definitely this. I say this against most of my fellow Americans' views, only because I want to get this out of the way. Davidizer13 16:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That may be someone's definition of terrorism, but there is no agreement on the definition of terrorism. I would point out that your definition is so broad that Matthew 21:19 would arguably make Jesus a terrorist, assuming someone owned the fig tree. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

f

Copied1, dated 2005-12-05

I don't know what these examples are doing here as they ought to be defined and described in the Terrorism and Shining Path (SL) articles themselves.

For me to interpret and apply these examples I'd have to know:

If SL identifies themselves as terrorists. (i.e. a literal admission)
If SL admits to targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action. (i.e. a functional admission)
If SL explicitly denies being terrorists.
If SL denies targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action.
If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is terrorist.
If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is not terrorist.
The examples cite countries which list SL as terrorist, what countries list SL as a political or economic or other type of organization?
For those, other than SL itself, who would argue that SL is/is not terrorist -- Who are they? And what about their argument is verifiable and cited?

Jmabel assumes far too much fact and opinion about the SL for the examples given to be useful to a general case. The assertions made in the article about "consensus" and "context" are not sufficiently abstract to be called a "guideline".

The leader of the SL might have written or declared "SL is a terrorist group", which makes it perfectly acceptable to any standard of editing I am familiar with to write without qualification "SL is a terrorist group". patsw 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know: do others find the example useful or confusing? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied2, dated 2006-07-16

In section Terrorist, terrorism we state some rules about how to use such words in connection with people and groups. Do the same rules hold for actions that can be labbelled as "terrorist"? If it is or if it is not I think the section should discuss explicitly this case too.--Pokipsy76 08:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any logic applied to referring to groups or individuals as terrorists applies to actions too, I should think. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the case we should say it explicitly in the section Terrorist, terrorism. Otherwise we should say explicitly that the rules do not apply to actions.--Pokipsy76 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more reluctant to call a particular man a terrorist than to call an action terrorism. For example, I would not say "Senator X was a terrorist" but I would say "The Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist organization" and would certainly say that lynching African-Americans was terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example was bad in 2 ways: first groups (as Ku Klux Klan) share the same rules of individuals according to the policy, second accusing a senator of terrorism can easily be controversial but there are also case where labelling an actions as "terrorist" can be more controversial than labelling indivisuals. You probably would not say that "Hiroshima bombing was a terrorist attack" but you would probably say that "Bin Laden was a terrosist".--Pokipsy76 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actively look forward to saying bin Laden was a terrorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actively look forward to saying Lenin was a terrorist, but I'll do it outside of the encyclopedia. Kokot.kokotisko 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to clean up the list of "for" and "against" arguments. Please check my changes. Kokot.kokotisko 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The kokot link goes to an empty page (as of 10/3/07)) The word "terrorist" may possibly be misused, as is the word "Nazi" - which some take to mean "someone who disagress with me", but there are many cases where it is the only possible word to use. The suicide bomber who blows up a crowded nightclub is a terrorist, working for (or with) other terrorists. The very definition of "terrorist" is "someone whose aim is to induce terror" (someone can double-check with Websters &c). Anyone who commits those sort of actions is by definition a terrorist.

It would be better for the Wiki Masters to say that when that word is used (along with many another word), it should be used accurately.

Imposing PC-speech into the Wiki is not a good idea. Imposing civility can be done without insisting that any truth that someone else may find objectionable must be eliminated! MikeZZ 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)MikeZZ[reply]

I completely agree with the concept you are stating but I think we must polish the definition to go more sincronized with academic research on the field. Researchers are the ones who more desperatly need a definition since they need to know which actions are included to be able of doing the research. For many years the key concepts have been 1)the action is done by non-govern organizations 2)the targets were non-combatants or were unprevented combatans (e.g. soldiers on leave) and 3)the actions are done to be watched by a third party (public opinion) so not for its tactical value but for sake of propaganda Nowdays it is thouth that a good definition can be "War crimes in situations were is no war". So to be able of using the word without endless discussion we need to sophisticate a little the definition because to say "terrorism is to cause terror" is to go into a swamp because many things cause terror and not all of them are terrorism.--Igor21 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied3, dated 2006-11-03

Why is this section included? The enclosing section indicates that terrorist and terrorism are words to be avoided, yet this subsection indicates that a lack of consensus exists. Wikipedia inconsistenly describes groups and events as terrorist in the narrative voice. For example IRA, Al-Qaida are not but Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 are. This gives much confusion. Either we agree that Wikipedia editors makes judgements about which events and groups are terrorist or we don't. At the moment, it is confusing. Curtains99 15:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is less objectionable to call an act terrorist than a group (and your choice of examples suggests that others have the same intuition. Both the Oklahoma bombing and the 9/11 attacks seem to pretty clearly reach any threshold for being terrorist acts. I wouldn't have used the word myself in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but I wouldn't fight over it.

Labeling a group terrorist is much trickier, because even a group that openly embraces terror tactics may do a great deal more than that. Consider Hamas. Or the CIA. Both have certainly committed acts of terror, but that doesn't make an openly Hamas-funded hospital or a covertly CIA-funded professional organization into agents of terror. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice that fewer and fewer individuals and groups are being described as terrorist in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Osama bin Laden is described as a 'militant Islamist'. Carlos the Jackal is still a terrorist. Che Guevara is of course a Marxist Revolutionary. The French Resistance is never referred to as terrorist. Martin McGuinness is a 'former head of the Provisional IRA' and not a terrorist.

The perpetrators of 9/11 are referred to as '19 terrorists' but that phrase links to a page called Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks which does not describe them as terrorists.

Do you think this situation is clear? I agree that an act is easier to designate as terrorist than a group or an individual, but I still believe that no act is ever objectively 'terrorist' when there is no agreed definition for the term. I can make arguments for why the two incidents above should not be considered terrorist. In the case of 9/11, I have a verifiable reliable source documenting an opinion held by millions of people that the act did not constitute terrorism. We end up with this kind of page: List of terrorist incidents which is pure POV Curtains99 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the executions of people who were perceived as the enemies of the French Revolution was objectively terrorist, and was proclaimed so by its instigators. Similarly, the "propaganda by deed" of anarchists circa 1900. To say that the 9/11 attacks were not a terrorist, it seems to me that one must subscribe to the theory that they were not perpetrated by Al Qaeda. I'm sure that millions of people believe they were not; millions of people presumably also believe that people have never set foot on the moon, but I would hope we are not expected to take them seriously.

That said, I would be perfectly happy with a rule that says that we should never make unascribed use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist". - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Yes, that would be in accordance with WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... with a little extra incentive attributable to Guantanamo Bay and other such phenomena. ... Kenosis 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why they wouldn't be terrorists attacks if they weren't committed by Al Qaeda. Even if they were committed by the CIA they would still be terrorist attacks Nil Einne 06:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied4, dated 2007-10-28

The page states: "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms." The word "terrorism" may indeed and often is used pejoratively. However, terrorism is a tactic of violence against civilians, either ordinary people or specifically targeted government officials. As a phenomenon, terrorism does exist whatever the connotations of the word. In English, this phenomenon is most commonly known as, yes, "terrorism"; for this reason, it is the best of way of naming articles. Unwieldy euphemisms, like "political violence" must not be used as susbstitutes. Beit Or 10:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the word "terrorism" is thrown around to describe so many shades of behaviour that it has become vague. Threats devoid of violence are called terroristic. It's used as a loaded pejorative for propaganda purposes. I would prefer we use more precise language, and "political violence," is much more precise. Similarly, just because imprecise euphemisms like "collateral damage" have gained popularity to mean civilian ~~casualties~~ deaths doesn't mean we should use them. Publicola 13:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political violence is sometimes appropiate, but terrorism sometimes is appropiate as well, as in cases where the term "terrorist" is the generally accepted term. Yahel Guhan 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the problem is who gets to decide who and what is "terrorism"? In heated issues like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each side considers the side's actions as "terrorism". Also, please consider the precedent. Zionist terrorism is titled Zionist political violence, the same is the case with Palestinian political violence. Finally, please note that "political violence" includes terrorism (since terrorism is always violent, and used for political purposes). Thus "political violence" is quite factually accurate.Bless sins 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Political violence" is vague. Terrorist is specific. Anything can be accurate if you use terms vague enough. That doesn't make it encyclopediac. In wikipedia we present well espablished facts, and is some fringe denier (like those who claim well established terrorists are not terrorists) chooses to ignore them, we shouldn't give them undue weight. Wikipedia shouldn't compromise its integrity to satisfy a fringe theory. The generally accepted consensus is that most of these "freedom fighters" as you call them, are terrorists. Yahel Guhan 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case, I suppose you would support renaming Zionist political violence to Zionist terrorism, and Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States to simply American state terrorism? Its unimaginable that any wikipedian of good standing would apply double standards.Bless sins 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not responding for YG, just stating my personal opinion. In the former example, the answer is "yes", in the latter it is "no". Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of who engages in it. The US government, however, does not engage in terrorism; at least, there is no consensus among experts that it does, only allegations thereof. Beit Or 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this is merely double standards. There are plenty of allegations against the United State government, just as there are allegations against Islamists. Bless sins 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No double standards here, but an application of WP:NPOV. If a majority of experts believe such and such group engages in terrorism, Wikipedia must reflect it. Anyway, we are going into too much detail over specific article titles, the issue is a general one. Beit Or 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support per my comments above. Yahel Guhan 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Though the term "terrorism" can indeed be misused there is no reason to avoid it entirely when it accurately described certain tactics. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish to remind that this is not a vote, but a discussion. Beit Or 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any action which ends in disruption of civil life needs to ~~terminated~~ termed as terrorism. Isn't it? Guruparan18 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean "needs to be called 'terrorism'"? Beit Or 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, corrected the above comment. :) Guruparan18 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total support. Neither the fact that some people misuse the word nor the fact that its frontiers are rather blur should be an obstacle to use it when appropiate. The only nuance that is acceptable is that the word should be restricted to the specific people who does or collaborate in the actions and not extended to all the related organizations. E.g. Hamas owns hospitals and if we say that is a terrorist organization we can also say that is a health care organization so we must say that Hamas practizes or uses terrorism but strictly is not a terrorist organization as it is not strictly a health care organization. OTOH Ezzeldin Al Qassam is a terrorist organization since this is its only activity. Another important thing is that when states commit actions that are identical to the actions commited by non-state sponsored organizations, this must be called state terrorism and when is an army, it must be called crimes of war. When civilians uprise and use military tactics, they must be called militians or irregulars. To allege the misuse of the word "terrorism" to dismiss its proper use is like forbid to use "donkey" for the same reason. To concentrate in the blur cases to dismiss the use of the word "terrorism" is like keep speaking about ornitorrincus to dismiss the use of word "mammals". Clear taxonomy is inherent to enciclopedism and it requires proper (scientific) use of all available words ignoring vulgar or POV oriented users.--Igor21 10:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. We should have articles entitled Islamic terrorism, Zionist terrorism, and Palestinian terrorism. The word terrorism may not encompass all deplorable acts against civilians (or against people in general), but, imperfect as the term is, that's what those concepts are commonly called. The euphemisms sound ridiculous to the point where, by using them, we are in fact still conveying a viewpoint (that the acts of violence described in the articles are not actually terrorism). The controversies over the usage of the term terrorism can be handled in the respective articles. -- tariqabjotu 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There can be no debate. Terrorim does exist; use of the word is therefore justified. Timneu22 11:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I think we have concensus here. Arrow740 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus at all. Peh! Relata refero (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to "vote" on this matter, but I feel compelled to comment here. All words that we might want to use exist, and connected to that, they should all have some explanatory power. However, the mere fact that a word exists (or that it can describe a concept that exists) does not mean that we should use it in the encyclopedia. That would apply to any opinionated word, too. ("There is no denying that awful movies exist, therefore we should describe this movie as awful.") The argument against saying "Person X is a terrorist" is not that the term "terrorist" has no meaning, it's that if we seek to write from a neutral point of view, it's not our job to go through each case and say that A is a terrorist, but B is something different. The cost of not making this judgment is rather small. In cases where everyone here would likely agree that the "terrorist" label is appropriate, we don't really lose anything by simply citing an authoritative source that uses it. Croctotheface 10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a logically bulletproof argument that the use of the word 'terrorism' was subjective and pejorative over at the 9/11 article, but it was rejected by Americans who can't differentiate between their own opinions and subjective facts. I gave up when it became clear there simply weren't enough rational people editing the article to make it ever NPOV. So at the very least I'm trying to minimize the damage by making sure that pro-US groups like the Contras get equal treatment. Given the cultural bias here I'm not hopeful, but that has never stopped me before. Damburger 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit you wrote "However, terrorism is a tactic of violence against civilians, either ordinary people or specifically targeted government officials." Do you mean Civilians or non-combatants because civilians can be combatants under international law --for example mercenaries are civilians who take a direct part in hostilities as are many spies.

And if only it were that simple. Please read the stated aims of the PIRA Long War

A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal.
- was the killing of louis Mountbatten not a terrorist act because he was a member of the British Armed forces (British Admiral of the Fleet do not retire)?
- Is the killing of unarmed policemen a terrorist act? What about a part-time member of the Royal Irish Regiment#Casualties. Is there a distinction between them on duty and off duty?
- What about British military bandsmen who in times of war work as medical orderlies?
- If an army unit is targeted should one consider Military necessity when ties to judge if collateral damage make it a terrorist attack or not. For example the Gilford pub bombings was aimed at killing soldiers. So does that mean it was not a terrorist attack?
- Was the killing of members of MI5 a terrorist act?
A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country.
- Does that mean that any bomb that was planted under this directive was not a terrorist bombing given the constraints of Military necessity? Again how does one judge what is acceptable civilian losses. For example at the Bishopsgate bombing in London a journalist died (because AFAICT he headed towards the bomb to get the story) is that acceptable collateral damage, because as intended by the PIRA it forced the British Government to pay for the damages as the insurance companies refused to pay stating it was war damage not criminal damage, (a big properganda victory to the IRA)? The bomb damage was assessed as costing more than the 10,0000 bombings put together had cost in Northern Ireland (De Baróid, Ciarán (2000). Ballymurphy And The Irish War. Pluto Press. pp. p. 325. ISBN 0-7453-1509-7. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)).
To make the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
- If one accepts that the British direct rule from Westminster in Northern Ireland was "colonial military rule", then the provisions of Protocol I Article 1.4 come into play.
To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.
- Is the shooting of collaborators and informers a terrorist act because they may well be in the pay of MI5? It is said one of the ways that the IRA spotted informers was their usage of ATM machines (the British Government being a bureaucracy used to pay the money into accounts on certain days of the month!)

All in all most of these involve a judgement about what is or is not a terrorist incident and given the systemic bias of this project we are better off not using the term because it does convey a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until we get a complaint from a terrorist before we make a final decision.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip Baird Shearer, I am not going to answer all these enigmas you propose here because I have answered others and you never say anything afterwards. You retreat until the next dicussion starts and then you come back with your litany of enigmas again. IRA was a terrorist organization whose members had the phantasy of being an army. So they disguise their modus operandi in a way that sometimes can be seen as a kind of mokery military action. However they never engaged formally in a combat and they never respected laws of war. If you want to be so precize we can say that "IRA was a militia that combined pure terrorism with some pseudo-military actions like snipering and ambushing on-duty platoons". As I tell you always, the fact that border cases exist has never been a reason to ban an empiric category that has thousands of clear cases. How would you call RAF or Red Brigades activity?? --Igor21 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Igor21: I have checked our postings on this page and as far as I can tell the last time you and I discussed this was in the section #Uses of word "Terrorism" and looking at the text in that section I was the last person to add a comment to that section just 31 minutes after you added the second to last comment. So I think it is a little unfair of you to write "You retreat until the next dicussion starts and then you come back with your litany of enigmas again." particularly as I have not asked you to answer any of the points I am making above. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

This PDF article by the British Army shows the problems with the word "terrorist". Paragraph 105 says "Over 600 soldiers have died or been killed due to terrorist action. In the worst year of 1972, 102 British soldiers died or were killed – the largest number in one year since Korea." Yet in the next paragraph/section 106 (subpara (b)) the report states "The next phase, from the summer of 1971 until the mid-1970s, is best described as a classic insurgency. Both the Official and Provisional wings of the Irish Republican Army (OIRA and PIRA) fought the security forces in more-or-less formed bodies. Both had a structure of companies, battalions and brigades, with a recognisable structure and headquarters staff. Protracted firefights were common. The Army responded with operations at up to brigade and even divisional level. The largest of these was Operation MOTORMAN, which was conducted from 31 July to 1 December 1972. It marked the beginning of the end of the insurgency phase. The OIRA declared a ceasefire in 1972 which it has never broken. The PIRA began a process of transforming itself into a terrorist organisation based on a cell structure." Yet in the previous paragraph it has described the deaths of soldiers during that period as "killed due to terrorist action". The British Army report indicates that there is confusion with the terms even within expert organisations which are very familiar with counter insurgency and terrorism. They are confused because at one level in the report they recognise a difference, but at another they want to "Use of the term [to] persuaded others to adopt [their] moral viewpoint.", and is the reason why I think it better to avoid the use of the term on Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you question Igor21, I would follow the guideline and not use the term terrorist. In the case of the RAF call them the Royal Air Force although I understand that Gobbles that master of propaganda did call them "terror-bombers" which rather proves the point that:

Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgement; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip Baird Shearer,

Three points :

1-To find uncomented answers to some puzzles proposed by you, go to Terrorism talk page.

2-RAF stands for Read Army Fraction [[1]] that was a terrorist german organization. If you read their ideology and modus operandi, you will see how dificult is to describe them without using the word "terrorism". In fact only their closer supporters do it.

3-The phrase "The PIRA began a process of transforming itself into a terrorist organisation based on a cell structure." proves beyond any doubt that there is a typology of actions and organizations that are characterized by this word. If IRA fits or not, it is another discussion.

--Igor21 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for (1) silly of me I should have know you'd be talking about a completely different talk page. I knew what you meant about RAF in (2) (see Revision as of 08:17, 3 May 2005) -- although most native English speakers I would have thought would not think of the initials RAF when thinking of the Baader-Meinhof Gang -- but I chose to make a point about the RAF and Gobbles use of the word "terror-bombers" which is in my more relevant to the discourse than what I would call something. As to (3) and the British Army calling the IRA a terrorist organisation, the BA fails the Mandy Rice-Davies test "He would, wouldn't he?", what I was doing was highlighting how the BA can get their knickers in a twist over the use of the word terrorist because they want the "Use of the term [to] persuaded others to adopt [their] moral viewpoint.", and is the reason why I think it better to present a neutral point of view and avoid the use of the term on Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied5, dated 2008-02-22

What is the point of not allowing the use of this word? The word Terrorist has a clear definition in the dictionary, by blocking it you are denieing the opprotunity to present facts on this encyclopedia. The English language has no other precise word for the intentional political killing of uninvolved civilians. If you bring a reliable source that states that a person or group have commited a crime that fit the dictionary's definition of terrorism, it would simply be untruthfull not to use the word terrorist or terrorism to describe that person/group/act.AviLozowick 13:33, 22 February, 2008 (UTC)

"Intentional political killing of uninvolved civilians"? That can occur outside the context of terrorism, and terrorism can occur without politics, killing, or civilians, though by definition, its victims are always involved. Without looking it up, I'd guess that a terrorist is a person who engages in or advocates illegal acts intended to change the behavior of a community by intimidating it. On the other hand, when a dictator, revolutionary leader, religious demagogue, paterfamilias, or gangster engages in such illegal activities, he's not called a terrorist. By its usage and by current events, the word has acquired political connotations. Unfree (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This mixes examples of political (the first 1 and maybe the next 2 or your examples) and non-political (the last 2). Maybe "intentional political crime against uninvolved civilians" would be better. But why are we arguing about the nuances of the definition, rather than the policy of blocking the usage altogether? IMO, "terrorist", with a sufficiently SPECIFIC definition, ought to be as legitimate in WP as "controversy" [about which there is also discussion, in the other direction]. If the policy comes down to a recognition that there IS no widely recognized, specific, and denotative ("unloaded") definition, then I guess we are stuck with it. But does it? 24.63.97.135 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A terrorist is instilling fear in a person or group to get what it wants. Often this is done through violence. When an institute such as a government is terrorizing, the state is probably a tyrannical state. The usage of terrorist nowadays is corrupted by the 9-11 attacks and the USA etc etc. In Europe at least. Before that no one was making trouble when the PLO was called a terrorist organisation. The word is corrupted in the sense that terrorists are absolute monsters that have no families and no conscience. There is always another side of the medaillon. Fact is, like someone mentioned earlier, there is no other word for practices like terrorism. Mallerd (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit today at WP:Words to avoid#Article title over use of the word "terrorism". I don't take a position, except the position that contentious topics need to stay in their own section (the section on "terrorist") and not spill over into unrelated sections ("Article title"). Btw, the implication was that Wikipedia thinks that "Islamic terrorism" exists but not other kinds of religious terrorism; you can see that's false from Religious terrorism, and the links to Jewish terrorism (also known as Kahanism), Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism.

Copied6, dated 2008-09-29

We have been pretty relaxed about letting people fiddle with the text on this page, which is good, but it's gotten long and disorganized and fewer people read the page now, so I'd like to continue G-Guy's work and try to tighten it up a bit.

Can I get agreement that this page probably can't work as a list of acceptable meanings for hot-button words? If we aim for that, this page could grow to a gigabyte. Issues, including the meanings of most words, should be discussed on whatever talk pages are relevant to the discussion, instead of getting spread out across Wikipedia. There are a few language issues related to WP:V and WP:OR here, but mostly the page seems to be about what is and isn't WP:NPOV language. A style guideline is not the place to figure out what distinguishes a terrorist. (This isn't a swipe at you, PBS, I appreciate your recent edits in that section. It's an impossible chore.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back in the page history, this guideline has been long and disorganized for more than two years and was already 50,275 bytes long when byte counts were introduced in April 2007! It is no wonder no one reads it.

You'll have to be a bit more precise what you mean by "tighten up". I broadly agree that the page won't work as a list of acceptable meanings for hot-button words, and I don't believe it is now. Interestingly, in the case of terrorism, it is actually Philip Baird Shearer whom we should thank: in this edit, he single-handedly excised several screenfuls of waffle about what distinguishes a terrorist, replacing it by what we have now. (Discussion here.)

However, I did not like the text I copyedited on terrorism, and I do not like what we have now. In particular, I disagree with the edit summary "The whole point of Countering systemic bias is that multiple sources may use the term terrorist but the first paragraph still applies."

WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is about addressing the bias caused by the demographics of Wikipedia editors. Much as I support the work being done there, it has absolutely nothing to do with the balance of coverage in reliable sources, which is a WP:NPOV issue. The phrasing "if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint" is point of view on several levels. First, it is itself an opinion: imagine reading it in an article! Second, if most reliable sources describe an organization's activities as terrorist then it is not Wikipedia's place to say "Aw, that's not fair! That's our liberal Western bias!" Wikipedia does not exist to put the world to rights, but to document what the reliable sources say.

This guideline should focus on the misuse of words like "terrorist" as labels. It should have nothing to say about the clearly defined use of such a word when it is supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Geometry guy 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this to retain the conciseness and (what I believe are) the good features of Philip Baird Shearer's version, while fixing the issues raised above. Geometry guy 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geometry guy I disagree with your changes and you did not wait very long for a reply before making you changes.

You say "The whole point of Countering systemic bias is that multiple sources may use the term terrorist but the first paragraph still applies." I would draw you attention to Quinn v. Robinson and the sea change in American Government views on terrorism since American civilians in the United States became a major victim of international terrorism. Your write "if most reliable sources describe an organization's activities as terrorist then it is not Wikipedia's place to say "Aw, that's not fair! That's our liberal Western bias!" Wikipedia does not exist to put the world to rights, but to document what the reliable sources say." The whole point is that one can state that ABC thinks XYZ is a terrorist. That can be sourced, but the term terrorist should not be used in the passive narrative voice because in doing so Wikipedia is making a judgement because the word terrorist is a pejorative term. BTW I did not make this stuff up off the top of my head, see Terrorist#Pejorative use.

OK I've reverted to my original version, and would appreciate it if we can talk through our differences before the section is changed. I have changed the section heading on this talk page so that others can see what section in the article we we are debating. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I waited 24 hours and checked you were active before making the change. You waited zero time before applying your first, second and third opinions, and zero time before reverting to your old text. Please read my text before reverting it: it addresses precisely the issues you raise about not using the terms in passive narrative. And please read my very clear case that this has absolutely nothing to do with WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Geometry guy 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is to carry a neutral point of view the value laden words do not help that process. Reliable sources do not help in this issue I can find dozens and dozens of articles from the 1970 and 80 that say that the IRA were a bunch of terrorists, so why was it that the US courts ruled as they did in the Quinn v. Robinson case? I can find dozens of articles that say that Mandela was a terrorist, and more recently that the is a statesman. The best advice on this issue is Wikipedia:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves for example see the article on the Red Army Faction and the Operation Entebbe do not need to call the terrorists, terrorists in the passive voice as it can either be done through attributing the word to another organisation like the German Government, or in the case of Entebbe through adding a sentence such as this "The hijackers deliberately sorted the hostages into Jew and Gentiles. As they did so a Holocaust survivor showed Böse a camp registration number tattooed on his arm, Böse protested "I'm no Nazi! ... I am an idealist."".

The reason for warning about countering systemic bias is important because many editors use the term terrorist without considering that it is a biased word. I.e. the Afghans fighting the Soviets were Freedom Fighters but those fighting NATO forces are terrorists (it depends on one's Point of View). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your aims, but not with the detail. Wikipedia:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves is one of my favourite passages. Your references to court cases and examples are completely unhelpful in a style guideline. If someone blows themselves up among multiple civilians going about their everyday lives, and multiple independent reliable sources refer to this as a terrorist act, then they are using a clearly defined notion of terrorist action that is widely accepted by the public, cf. Terrorist#Key criteria.

The issue you raise about editors using "terrorist" in a non-neutral way is a WP:NPOV issue: they are breaking one of Wikipedia's most important policies. This guideline is a minor contribution to that policy framework. It has nothing to do with WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. If the latter has a re-education program, then I think the Village pump would like to know about it.

Now, finally, reread the text you reverted to an old version of yours from over a year ago (for which there was no talk page support) and tell me what is wrong with it. Geometry guy 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your references to court cases and examples are completely unhelpful in a style guideline". I don't understand what you are saying, no one is suggesting putting the case in the style guide. But if you are going to discuss the issue, it would be helpful if you knew something about the case as it is pertanant to the use of the term terrorist. When the IRA targeted the British Army in 1920 were they terrorists? When the IRA targeted the British Army in Warrenpoint ambush was it a terrorist attack? When the IRA targeted Margaret Thatcher the Brighton hotel bombing in 1984 was it terrorist act? I can find dozens of articles in the British media for every attack by the IRA all of which named every attack a terrorist action no matter what the target was. The problem you come up against is not a simple one of black and white (as you imply with "If someone blows themselves up among multiple civilians going about their everyday lives" I would say it depends what the target was), see Military necessity and acceptable civilian casualties. If one accepts that targeting security forces is not a terrorist act -- which is what you are implying from your comment above -- Is there a difference between a part time soldier on duty and one not on duty? Is there a difference between an armed policeman and an unarmed policeman. What about the prison guards that guard "terrorist" prisoners? What about the killing of enemy paramilitaries (are the civilians or combatants)? If a member of the Royal Engineers was constructing a sangar in Northern Ireland then was an attack on that soldier a terrorist attack? What if the soldier is replaced with a civilian contractor? What about the person who makes a part needed to construct a sangar? In Britain many of the essential support functions which used to be done by REMF are now done by civilians, where does one draw the line between a guerrilla attack and a terrorist attack? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your example "If someone blows themselves up among multiple civilians going about their everyday lives" a sign of implied systemic bias, because for example was the Shankill Road bombing a terrorist attack as the target was enemy paramilitaries? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"reread the text you reverted to an old version of yours from over a year ago" I put the text in place over a year ago but until 10 July this year the only difference was the addition of {quote|One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.|Anon}}[2]. By the 12 August the above additional comment had been removed and apart from changning "n line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" to "In line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, the words extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter", the following had been tacked on the end "Such terms are not automatically equivalent to terrorist, as they may cover legitimate state organizations and resistance movements, but they may also be applied to groups that have been characterised as terrorist organisations." I see no advantage to the addition as it adds nothing and brings in some ambiguities. By the 3 September the changes were only to the last paragraph which had been changed from "In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan." to two paragraphs "In line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, the words extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter should generally be avoided. As alternatives, consider more objective terms such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan. These descriptions are not exactly synonymous with "terrorist", as they cover legitimate state organizations and resistance movements, but they are also applied to groups that have been characterised as terrorist organisations." and "Naturally, if a verifiable and reliable source explicitly uses one of these terms, then that term should be used in direct quotes or "X said Y" phrases, properly cited. Or, if multiple reliable sources use it, it may be used to describe a subject, but only to suggest that the subject is widely known as a terrorist, and the references in question should be placed right after the word or the sentence in which the word appears." To which the only substantive change is "Or, if multiple reliable sources use it, it may be used to describe a subject, but only to suggest that the subject is widely known as a terrorist" a change I disagree with. So the wording I put in place over a year ago -- in particular the first paragraph -- has not been changed at all until 18 September and I do not think that the changes were an improvement.[3]--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are unanimous (or nearly so) that Person X is a terrorist, I don't think we should discourage editors from using that word; to do so is pushing a POV, i.e., "No one can really say what terrorism is." IronDuke 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Can someone explain to me why most of the discussion on a style guidelines page (both recently and off and on for several years) concerns who qualifies as a terrorist? When you get finished, shall we move on to whether abortion is murder, and whether the word "change" applies to the policies of Obama or McCain? Why don't we argue about what a terrorist is at terrorist, and leave this page to discuss proper Wikipedian usage of common concepts such as "say"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind seeing the section go. It's never been very useful, IMO -- mostly quite the opposite. IronDuke 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dan that discussing what does or doesn't qualify as terrorism is off-topic; this guideline should discuss only how editors can avoid misusing words. Interestingly, I also agree with almost everything PBS says about the greyness and misuse of the word terrorist in politics and the media. Articles should not imitate such misuse except through direct or indirect attributed quotation, fully sourced. The key point, as PBS suggested earlier, is to provide sufficient transparency of meaning to let the reader decide. I further agree with PBS that some of the additions to his version have been unhelpful. The text I wrote was intended as both a cut and compromise, so that the guideline says the bare minimum that it needs to say to get across the points about clarity of language and attributing ambiguous language. I am glad to see IronDuke has restored it. Geometry guy 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in favour of the current version because I do not think it is clear enough. But rather than go over old ground lets see if we can modify this version. There should be a header link to the policy WP:ASF. An explanation of what the narrative voice is needed or at the very least a link to WP:CITE#QUALIFY (Need to qualify sources). The sentence "If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears." should be removed. (1) It says nothing that has not already been said. (2) citations do not go in sentences, and (3) it could encourage the piling up of citations to reinforce a POV -- usually what is suggested these cases the "best" (most reliable) couple of citations are cited and the rest are not. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this exact wording has to stay, but I'm also coming to the opinion that when someone has an unambiguous reputation as a terrorist, the narrative voice may say so, e.g., "IronDuke is a [blank] terrorist, <ref> Multiple cites go here </ref>..." (where [Blank] = whatever national/ethinic/religious/political cause I'm fighting for). The question to ask is, are there are any reliable, scholarly sources that dispute that IronDuke is a terrorist? If not we use that as a description, same as "Serial killer" (which could be said to imply a moral judgment). IronDuke 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to change of the exact wording too: it was just an attempt at a cut and compromise, and needs refinement. WP:ASF looks like a helpful link. I have tended to use "attribute" rather than "qualify", but the latter may be better if it is Wikilinked. Concerning the quoted sentence, like IronDuke I disagree with (1), but I think it is worth advising editors that even if all reliable sources use a term like "terrorist" to describe a person, group or action, Wikipedia articles need to be worded in such a way that readers will understand the intended meaning and context, and not be misled by a label. The best way to do this is to qualify, but it isn't the only way. Regarding (2), citations do sometimes go mid-sentence, but I don't want to argue over that! I take the point about (3). Geometry guy 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad PBS and G-Guy linked WP:ASF (a section in WP:NPOV); perhaps the article should link ASF and describe how that applies to labels, rather than trying to figure out what makes someone a terrorist. The big problem IMO with saying anything more than the minimum in a guideline is that this often results in people reading the guideline, thinking they know what's up, and not reading the relevant core content page. The core content pages are gold, and reflect consensus as well as any pages on Wikipedia. WP:ASF says: state facts [as represented in RSs], including facts about opinions, but don't state opinions. Abu Nidal was widely considered to be a terrorist, and a particularly violent and cruel one at that; it's not POV to say that he was widely considered to be a terrorist, because just about everyone says so. Whether a particular 15-year old suicide bomber is a terrorist is more a matter of opinion; some reliable sources might say yes, some might say no. WP:NPOV says: don't state opinions. The result I want more than anything when someone reads this page, if they haven't yet read WP:NPOV, is for them to decide to read it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's important to remember that we don't in every case have to make a decision about who is and is not a terrorist. When reliable sources are unanimous (or nearly so), it isn't merely permissible for us to use this term, we are actually required to do so. Not that there aren't sometimes grey areas, and care should certainly be taken when dealing with such cases. IronDuke 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to propose an addition to the current guidelines on the basis that if a subject is notability solely for being a terrorist or commiting a terrorist act, the use of the word is unavoidable if the article is the properly assert why the subject is notable. --neon white talk 12:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

I would like to note that Wikipedia risks becoming something of a poster-child for flagrant political correctness in defiance of common understanding because of this guideline. Specifically, an RFC has arisen that seeks to remove the "terrorist" label from Osama bin Laden. See Discussion here. How about we replace the wording with something like
The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are emotionally charged, and are frequently controversial labels. These words have powerful potential to be non-neutral, and so they should only be used with caution and only if the label is of supreme importance and relevance to the subject.
Thoughts? RayAYang (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there's a relevant Arbcom case, or if not, then some heavy-duty mediation? I'd be in favor of simply giving a one-sentence summary and linking to the last place in wiki-space where this was mediated or hashed out. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far from an expert on internal wikipolitics, but the RfC and the prior debate at Osama bin Laden appear to have been ongoing for some time. If there were a ruling, surely somebody would have cited it there by now. For better or for worse, I think this one's for us to hash out. RayAYang (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I asked over at that page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some news organisations like Reuters do not use the word terrorist unless they are attributing it to someone else. Which BTW IronDuke means that reliable sources are never unanimous on this usage. The word has such political connotations, and I think that many people who contribute to Wikipedia do not stop to consider this (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). The editors taking part in this debate have obviously thought about this issue in some detail. They are not the target audience for this section. It is there for those (I suspect the majority of editors) who have given the issue little to no thought. I have already listed lots of example further up the page, but here are a three more as food for thought. Was the sinking of sinking of Hydro a terrorist attack? Was the recent drone attack in Pakistan a terrorist attack as some Pakistani women and children were killed and the Pakistani government is on record as not supporting such attacks? Few if any English language newspapers will have described either of these attacks as terrorist attacks. Yet after the USS Cole bombing many English language newspapers and other news outlets described the attackers as terrorists, even though it was an attack on a military target with no "Civilian collateral damage".[4][5] Unless we leave such accusations in quotes and attribute the use of these biased words to someone then we are taking the the side of the people who use the words.

"On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.'" (Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism)

--PBS (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is obviously true that the term is used as a slander, it also has a definition with no other real alternative without resorting to hideous euphemisms which are similarly used by the opposing sides. I think the answer is to vehemently stick to a neutral point of view, attribute views, represent them all equally and avoid any political rhetoric sources. --neon white talk 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any objection to my proposed language, or at least agreement that the current language is much too stark? RayAYang (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is not an improvement on what is already on the page. "are emotionally charged, and are frequently controversial labels" is not as succinct as "are pejorative terms," --PBS (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a guideline, and guidelines can't overrule policy, and the noticeboards that support the policy pages. The word "terrorist" is all over WP:NPOVN and its archives. If the issue is decided at NPOVN, I would have no objection to including a one- or two-sentence summary here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest we remove the current wording, pending further developments. The current wording is inappropriate. PBS: the term terrorist is not a pure pejorative; it describes a methodology of political action, and indeed there have been self-identified terrorist groups in the past. RayAYang (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a position, but I have a question: do you believe your wording already reflects consensus? Why or why not? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there *is* a consensus; there is varied disagreement over whether the word should be allowed at all in the narrative voice, if I read what PBS is saying correctly. I believe consensus opinion would consent to my wording -- nobody would deny that such labels should be used with care to the extent that they're used, but some people will argue that it's just right, others that I'm being unduly cautious, etc. In any case, the current wording is a stark position that cannot be said to reflect the consensus. RayAYang (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you that we don't know what consensus is, yet. Feel free to stick a ~~{{disputed-section}}~~ {{underdiscussion|section}} tag on it, and bring it up at WP:NPOVN. I'll keep an eye on it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ray's version above. IronDuke 23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It is always a problem when people start to use the word consensus or no consensus when discussing changing guidelines. But as I am against the change of wording you propose, User:RayAYang there is no consensus for such wording. To help advance your case would you please give some examples of articles where the use of the word terrorist in the passive narrative voice is appropriate in you opinion? -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, I am surprised the word terrorist is so foreign to you in plain language that you need examples of its use. E.g. "The September 11th terrorist attacks," the lead of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks article, the Britannica description of Narodnaya-Volya, etc. I believe detailed criteria more than sufficing for common usage can be found at Category:Terrorists. RayAYang (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But ultimately these terms were likely developed and often used in a political way which is the danger of the word. I think November 2008 Mumbai attacks is a good example of where you have to be careful of it's use considering it is a recent event and motive has not been firmly established. I think a better example is Eric Robert Rudolph, the relates to my suggestion above, in that Eric Robert Rudolph's notability is solely for a terrorist act and i found it very difficult to accept that the article should not use the word if it was to properly explain why he was notability. The key in this case was attribution, rather than staing that he was a terrorist it now states that the FBI considers him to be one. --neon white talk

Dangerous, yes. Outright banned from the narrative voice, no. At the very least, I have provided glaring counterexamples to the description of the word terrorist as "inherently non-neutral." Does it carry a connotations? Sure. So does murderer, assassin, killer, journalist, politician, kidnapper, pirate, criminal, etc. Yet all of these words, including terrorist, have uses in the common English idiom that are primarily descriptive as well. It would be pushing a politically correct point of view to ban such words from our narrative voice, in direct contradiction to the customary usage of English speakers. In addition, neither "militant" nor "partisan" nor "activist" provides a concrete, definite, and specific image to the reader of the activities encompassed by "terrorism," and to use a more general euphemism in lieu of a more detailed and precise word is a violation of good prose style, as well. RayAYang (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out were in an article like the Anglo-Irish War that the article would be improved by using the word terrorist to describe a man like Collins. --PBS (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place, if any, would be in a section about the British governments reaction the seperatists. For instance if it can be sourced that the British government considered them to be terrorists. Other issues arrise in describing the legality of certian illegal terrorist groups. CAn me say individual were arrested under a Terrorism Act? --neon white talk 15:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one can say that someone has been arrested under the terrorism act, that is exactly how this section encourages an editor to add information, as does the section A simple formulation -- "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" -- in the WP:NPOV policy -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which applies to everything, i don't understand why these specific terms need a special mention. --neon white talk 01:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray puts it very well. I'll only add that when scholars, analysts, and journalists are in virtual unanimity, the word is no longer expressing an opinion but a fact. To continue to fight against the use of the word isn't about NPOV, it's about a profound misunderstanding of that policy, and of common sense as well. IronDuke 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we represent all points of view? If half of acedemics call a person a freedom fighter and half a terrorist, how would it be neutral to only mention the first half's POV? --neon white talk 01:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. In the situation you describe, the difference of opinion would have to be noted. IronDuke 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is wrong as it violates NPOV and RS, if the vast majority of RS's discribe an act and or person as terrorist then that is what we should say. To not do that gives undue weight to the minority opinion of the terrorists and their fanboys. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. WTA is all essentially a synthesis of WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, WP:V, and WP:RS meant to find ways not to feed the trolls. Our goal in Wikipedia is not to punk the terrorist and their fanboys, our goal is to write an open, collaborative, quality, well sourced, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia. Does including the word "terrorist" in every article that has sources using it advance this goal?

I offer it doesn't, because most of the time, for example in the Israel/Palestinian conflict articles, you end up with incredibly ginormous soapbox noise, drowning a few dedicated editors from all sides.

Most of which have no problem saying "the Palestinian militants killed 30 civilians" instead of "the Palestinian terrorists killed 30 civilians" or saying "Israeli army units killed 30 civilians" instead of "Israeli army terrorists killed 30 civilians" even if that is what otherwise reliable sources are saying.

Far from being terrorist fanboys, these are editors capable of committing themselves to building an encyclopedia, warts and all, rather than an ideological narrative supporting their own side. In this sense, WP:WTA in general, and WP:TERRORIST in particular, are WP:NPOV put in practice, rather than its opposite.

WP:WTA is very helpful to these Davids standing in front of the Goliaths of POV pushing: it makes discussion in an article moot; "word-x" is out, period. This allows the article to move forward, hence moving all of wikipedia forward, while it also provides a central place for this discussion, namely this very talk page!

As to WP:RS, it doesn't apply if the idea being transmited is not changed. If what you meant was WP:CITE et al, that there is a difference between citing a source and quoting a source, and that we are called, whenever possible, to minimize quoting (among other reasons for copyright) and maximize citing. WP:WTA is about how we write in the encyclopedic voice, it says nothing about what we source, cite or quote. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness is just another POV not NPOV a fact you fail to understand. That some groups don't like being reminded that non-state actors randomly shooting unarmed civilians is terrorism is tough, it is and an encyclopedia should try to be accurate and call it terrorism, especially when virtually every source calls it that. Not calling terrorists terrorists is POV pushing. NPOV is a very simple policy that is constantly misrepressented as political correctness, its not, it says we should mention all notable pov's. If the only POV is that they are terrorist (such as mumbai) then we flat out call them terrorists. If more than one (notable) POV exists about an event or group then we mention both ie X says Foo are terroists but Foo supporters says it is legitamate self defence. Very simple. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be true, but that is not the point. The point is that an editor that wants to move forward with making an encyclopedia, that believes that reaching consensus is more important than pushing her own POV, is not about eliminating POV, is about presenting all POVs in a neutral manner. This includes presenting terrorist groups, pedophiles, puppy killers, and *insert universally hated group here* in a manner that they can consider neutral, while giving equal (and due weight) voices to their victims and opponents.

Saying "Foo are terroists but Foo supporters says it is legitimate self defense" is not a neutral presentation (as it is not providing any information on the objective self-description of the group), and it a journalistic, not encyclopedic voice (ie it seeks balance of opinion, rather than presentation of verifiable fact).

Saying "Foo are a Flying Spaghetti Monster militant organization. Victims of Foo are X, Y, and Z. Foo has been widely decried many, including by other Pastafarians for their violent actions." Is not only much more informative to our readers and has an encyclopedic voice, but generates consensus from enough editors to keep the article moving forward. It is longer, but longer generally means more informative.

Lastly, I find your appeal to motive disturbing and unproductive: while it might be true that "some groups don't like being reminded that non-state actors randomly shooting unarmed civilians is terrorism", that is not why WP:TERRORIST exists, and to suggest this is basically to call pretty much the entire wikipedia project an apology for terrorism. While no doubt some editors are motivated by ideological reasons, this doesn't make their contributions any less important. WTA exists so that in an environment of massive collaboration we can move on from petty fights over terminology, centralize a project wide consensus, stop feeding trolls, *and* respect the spirit of WP:NPOV which is the encyclopedic voice. Never forget that we are supposed to assume good faith. This assumption is in particular important and necessary when the other editor is a terrorist fanboy, to use your epithet.

In fact, Terrorist exist so that we can link to it and explains this at length. It is not about hiding information, but about structuring information in a way where the presentation is neutral, verifiable, and reliably sourced.

It seems to me you are pretty set in your ways, and perhaps there is no way to convince you, but I do suggest that if you strongly disagree, you continue to engage in debate here and in the articles. Ultimately, if consensus goes your way, [{WP:TERRORIST]] is a moot point. But be careful, consensus is not your personal army, it is a reality born from all editors in an article, including those who oppose your POV and might be terrorist fanboys (which BTW, I much rather have those here editing wikipedia than going around killing people) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This includes presenting terrorist groups, pedophiles, puppy killers, and *insert universally hated group here* in a manner that they can consider neutral, while giving equal (and due weight) voices to their victims and opponents." While this is mostly wrong (eg, WP is not at all interested ingiving "voice" to victims (or perpetrators), I think it's a useful sentence to point out what's wrong with the anti T-word camp: by your logic, we wouldn't be discussing "puppy killers," we would be discussing militant anti-puppy organizations and individuals who sometimes resort to violence. This is really not complicated: when the vast majority of RS's are in agreement, WP presents their findings as fact. Many people dispute evolution on various grounds. WP nevertheless reflects scientific consensus about evolution, not religious opinion, no matter how vigorous, or how popular. IronDuke 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, we agree that WP is not interested in giving voice to anyone, it is about presenting facts, so please do not build a straw man. I also take issue with this thing about a "anti T-word camp", there are no camps, there are editors trying to develop consensus, and such militaristic us-v-them attitude is hardly constructive, and in part why WTA is so needed, to limit this impulse to the irrational.

However, you miss the point of WP:NPOV as it relates to WP:RS, and this is a typical confusion. There is difference between citing a source, and quoting a source. When you cite, you are providing verifiability for your statements, but are writing in your own voice. When you quote, you copy the exact same text from the source. Its really that simple: you confuse citing and quoting, when they are entirely different ways of sourcing.

We are required to verify everything we write with sourcing, to demonstrate we are not doing original research, and that the views are notable. However, we are not required to quote.

Your example with evolution is interesting, however, we do not call creationists a theocratic anti-scientific fundamentalism, which is both sourced and correct. Why? Because we describe them in their own words. Its really that simple: present the facts, let the reader decide. You seem to not trust our readers to make rational choices, and seem to feel we need to hand-hold them by pre-chewing the information and spitting it out in a single, shocking word. I disagree with such an affront to liberty of thought, and trust that people can garner the facts on their own. And so does Wikipedia, actually: WP:MORALIZE. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on terminology There is a difference, I believe, between describing an action as a terrorist action, and a group as using terrorist methods and describing a group or person as a terrorist in the encyclopedic/narrative voice.

The first is a factual representation (when supported by verifiable sources), the last approaches epithet in many cases.

Many organizations and non-state actors have engaged in terrorist action that are not widely considered terrorist organizations, such as political parties, national liberation movements, and government organizations. I think that when talking about actions (say, an specific attack), describing the actions (when sourced and in consensus) as terrorist should not be a WTA. After all, blowing yourself up in a crowded restaurant *is* terrorism.

However, when it comes to describing ideologies, organizations, and movements, calling them "terrorist" is a WTA. First, except for some nihilist cults, no political organization describes itself as terrorist - self-description is an important part of a neutral point of view. Second, it is shorthand for a further exploration of the topic, it is incurious, and the encyclopedic voice must have curiosity about a topic and try to explore it to the max. Third, terrorism is not an ideology, but an action. It is actually syntactically incorrect to use it as an adjective, other than as an epithet.

So, for example, Passover massacre should probably be able to say "terrorist attack" - as suicide bombing against civilian targets is just that. However, simply calling Hamas a terrorist organization should be a WTA. Why? Hamas is not solely defined by the terrorist actions of its armed wing, nor the sole reason of it existence is to perform terrorist attacks. This is letting the verifiable facts talk: Hamas is a political party that engages in terrorism, but also builds hospitals and participates in elections. While I disagree entirely with Hamas, in particular its antisemitism, when I read an encyclopedia, I do not want my views expressed, I want verifiable facts so that I can make up my own mind. That is why WTA is so important, to block a given POV from taking over, specially if it is our own. While I want reassurance of my own views, I read a blog... and if my ideas are righteous, people should be able to sway to them on their own by reading the facts without the need for me to denigrate my opponents in an encyclopedia. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though you link to strawman, I’m not sure you’ve read it. You wrote first that we should give “equal (and due weight) voices to their victims.” Then you write: “we agree that WP is not interested in giving voice to anyone.” You appear to agree with me, but not with yourself.

"...there are no camps, there are editors trying to develop consensus, and such militaristic us-v-them attitude is hardly constructive, and in part why WTA is so needed, to limit this impulse to the irrational."

You didn’t link to irrational here, but you might be well-served doing so. That you disagree with us of the word “camps” does not make it irrational. Though, it could be said, disputing what is obvious might be.

"Its really that simple: you confuse citing and quoting, when they are entirely different ways of sourcing."

What a strange thing to say. I’m doing nothing of the kind, of course.

"...we do not call creationists a theocratic anti-scientific fundamentalism, which is both sourced and correct."

I don’t know about “sourced,” but it sure isn’t correct (for example, creationism is not per se theocracy). What we do call it however, is pseudoscience. Not “in their own words.” That’s just a very, very strange way to go about writing an encyclopedia.

“You seem to not trust our readers to make rational choices…”

Well, if that isn’t as succinct a recapitulation of my argument as it is possible to make, I don’t know what is.

As for the rest, I see that you have strong views about how terrorism should be used, and those views are interesting. However, I’m going to rely on what reliable sources say, not what you think they ought to say, in determining how to edit. IronDuke 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you confuse quoting and sourcing, because when you cite, you can cite a source that uses the term "terrorism", without yourself using the term; whereas when you quote, you have to use the exact same text. So [{WP:RS]] is still kept if you use a self-description or even an euphemism with a citation, instead of quoting the source with the full language. I do understand your argument in this sense, but find it flawed.

INB4: Who determines how to write the citation? Consensus, including WTA! What is so hard about that?

I do understand your insistence on WP:RS, but it is a policy - NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and trumps RS every time. Its Royal Flush-level pwnage.

So... if a source can be reliable without being neutral, it means that following it would be. So by using the language and voice of a non-neutral source that is both verifiable and reliable, you are trashing neutrality. In brings us to your "Foo" argument: its is not neutral to propose and counter-propose, but is is neutral to propose X, propose f(X), and propose -X. So there are ways to follow WP:RS that also follow WTA, you just need to accept that neutrality is a principle. I know this is hard, but it is not optional.

As you can see, I am quite open to some level of flexibility with the word "terrorist" vis-a-vis WTA, in particular as an action. What I am mostly concerned is the repercussions your argument has across all of WTA and is usefulness as an anti-troll device. If we start saying we must say whatever the sources say in their own words, we will break Wikipedia, because the NPOV will be broken.

Then there is the pragmatic consideration, while secondary to the neutrality in my mind, which is also very rational. What is lost by saying "militant" instead of "terrorist"? If the assertion of terrorism is a verifiable one, any half-wit will cut to the chase and make up their own mind, be it for or against or in between. However, including it might generate a huge fight only related to terminology. Eliminating WTA as it stands, instead of expanding, will lead to trolls and WP:POINTy-heads dominating the editing battles much more than they do now, in particular in highly contentious articles.

In this sense WTA is like the signs you see in some bars that say "No religion or politics allowed in this bar". At first, it seems as censorship and a politically correct limitation of freedom. The reality is that in most bars is that some conversations on those topics are allowed, specially early on the night. But as the night progresses, the bartender uses the sign to keep some of the most rowdy patrons under control, and a certain peer pressure environment develops. By limiting what can be spoken about and eliminating the most co3mmon cause for drunken fights, all can hve a drink with an expectation that no major crap will go down.

I do trust our readers to make rational choices. Or more correctly, I aim to write for the readers who will make rational choices. Why don't you, as you say? Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was all quite interesting, but could you focus on this discussion (e.g., the actual points that I made)? Thanks. IronDuke 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that you feel I didn't focus on the discussion, I certainly feel that I focused on the key points that are relevant to WP:TERRORIST and your argument that it violates RS. If I left anything unaddressed that you want addressed, by all means point it out. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I didn't address, for example, your swipe at me for contradicting myself. I didn't because I think it is not productive to this discussion to concentrate on the analogies and not the actual point: this is not, in my opinion, an adversarial debate, but a conversation to improve an encyclopedia. That said, d:voice, has many meanings, and I was using it in the sense of "encyclopedic voice" not "proper voice". I took your usage of "voice" to mean a "soapbox", which wikipedia isn't, but my original usage was meant to say that neutrality requires we do not invent arguments (or voices), but present what sources say are the arguments that originate from each side (their voices) - I do think we disagree on this view, but I do think this view is support by wikipedia's spirit, pillars, and consensus i the overwhelming majority of articles I have read or edited. I apologize for not providing nuance, but this might happen again and I ask you bear with me so we can have a productive discussion - English is after all my second language ;). Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that English is not your first language. Please believe me when I say that my English is very, very good. When I tell you you're using a word wrong, you probably are. That said, I don't believe you have offered any convincing arguments against using the word, other than that you don't like it. IronDuke 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting us back on task, I hope.

Cerejota, do you or any user disagree with the substance of my proposed wording? I am aware that PBS doesn't think it will be an improvement, but dooes anybody take issue with the substance of the wording? If you do, please propose an alternative wording.
If we cannot come to an agreement on new wording within a few days, barring strident objection, I am going to remove the current wording pending even more extended discussion. This is because it is clear to me that the current wording does not represent the consensus of editors currently in this discussion, and has very serious flaws that I have pointed out.

Best, RayAYang (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RayAYang let me make it clear to you as I seem to have failed to do so so far: I disagree with your new wording, so your proposed wording does not have a consensus. - PBS (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "strident objection": The template at the top of guidelines says "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Do not remove the current wording, as it reflects a compromise reached over many months of discussion on this talk page in the interests of obtaining a consensus. --PBS (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, we'll see what the others have to say. Because, so far as I can see, the discussion for the current wording was created by you and one other editor, over objections from IronDuke and with commentary from Dank55. An attempt to invoke the "I was here first, and I'll object to everything else without replying to your reasoning" argument is, I should think, generally unconstructive and contrary to the best spirit of Wikipedia and collegial discussion. RayAYang (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also point out, PBS, that a version substantially edited by me was in place for a good while. Did you get consensus before making changes that version? IronDuke 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change doods, so lets not get our undies all bunched up... PBS: you objection just doesn't make me comfortable, it is the type of attitude that I have seen lead to edit wars and WP:DRAMA reports. And Ray, proposals are useful, and wanted, but unless it is a straw poll, I think its natural that people will move around and give other opinions, even beyond what you expected or wanted to constrain.

Furthermore, even in this page, consensus doesn't mean that if there are objections, then the change stays, it means that change should be carefully measured. I like the current wording because because it focuses on issues of neutrality, which is what WTA is about, but don't like it because it provides caveats that are much better discussed by editors in a given article.

Perhaps a survey might be in order, if only to gauge in a systematic way were consensus might lay. But I prefer that Ray be bold, change the section, and then lets see if it survives 3RR. That is always a better measure of consensus: if sufficient editors like a change, they will revert to it even over the strenous objection of a single, or even a group, of editors screaming "consensus!" futilely into the wind. ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that the words are emotionally charged, and are frequently controversial labels." it is that they are biased word and phrases, and as such carry an inherent non neutral point of view. I think it is very bad idea to suggest that an edit war is used to solve this current discussion. A survey is a much preferred method of proceeding. --PBS (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is severely misguided and makes little sense. A word itself cannot be neutral or otherwise, a word by itself without any context is not a view point at all. Regardless the word is frequently used in scholarly sources without any attached political meanings. --neon white talk 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really and how do scholarly sources define terrorism and terrorist? (see below my comment on something that ~~IronDuke~~ user:Cerejota wrote. --PBS (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the proposal to replace the entire terrorist section with this paragraph? I thin it omits several important points. First, we need to say that the terms are inherently and universally pejorative, not just "emotional" and "controversial". Controversial suggests that reasonable people can differ so we should have an orderly discussion about whether the word terrorist should be used. The section is supposed to be a warning not to use the word terrorist. Second, it further weakens the premise by changing "inherently" non-neutral to "powerful potential to be non-neutral". I do agree that "never" is too strong because there are cases where the word is properly used. Guidelines and policies are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, so it is hard to prescribe an exact test. Near unanimity of scholars is an arbitrary measure and I don't think we have any good argument for choosing one formulation of a standard over another. In many cases the test turns on whether a reputable body places a group on a list of terrorists. We are focusing here solely on the semantic question of whether a given act constitutes terrorism. If there is any dispute it could be over that, but sometimes it concerns what a group did, but sometimes it concerns whether a person should be attributed to a group, whether a certain level of intent or culpability means a group is to blame for something, etc. We have to be careful with all of these.

I do agree with removing the statement regarding in-line attributions. "The US until 2008 had Nelson Mandela on its terrorist watch list" is okay because Mandela is well known and this is an objective, well-reported fact. However, "Many, such as Plain Truth Magazine, believe Mandela is a terrorist[http://plaintruthmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/06/stop-terrorist-nelson-mandela.html] is exactly the kind of NPOV and BLP problem we are concerned about. Granted, Plain Truth is not a reliable source, but one can easily misuse WP:ASF so that we end up calling people terrorists but disguise that as reporting on something someone else said. The fact that a reliable source calls someone a terrorist is only notable to the subject of an article (meaning in this case weight + relevance) if the accusation itself is notable. Wikidemon (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, the statement that the term is "inherently non-neutral" is precisely the crux of the dispute. I argue that terms like terrorism have a legitimate descriptive function in the English language, both on this page and at WP:NPOVN, and are neither inherently nor universally pejorative, except in the sense that "murderer" or "criminal" is. Indeed, there have been self-identified terrorist groups in the past.

I am proposing precisely to weaken the premise of this section from an unsupportably strong one to a weaker, but more supportable one. I recognize that it is easier to label an action as terrorist than the perpetrator(s) of the action, and that such labels attached to people and groups are often controversial. Such controversies can be unhelpful, and should in general be avoided, but a legitimate desire to avoid fruitless debate ought not cause us to do violence to the English language and succumb to an absurdly politically correct point of view. I'm amenable to any changes in wording consistent with the sentiments I've expressed here. RayAYang (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"unsupportably strong one to a weaker" Why do you think it is unsupportable? The only requirement is that usually such an accusation is attributed in the text. --PBS (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requirement at issue is the statement that terrorism not be allowed in the narrative voice of the article. This is in direct conflict with basic usages of the English language, as I have argued above, and at WP:NPOVN. Ray (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

~~User:IronDuke~~Cerejota you wrote above "If the assertion of terrorism is a verifiable one, any half-wit will cut to the chase and make up their own mind, be it for or against or in between." In which case we do not have to say it in the passive narrative voice as it it is a universal truth. After World War II the British authorities declined to describe Irgun as a terrorist organization because they were not terrified of it. So how does one verify an assertion of terrorism? One can say that someone was terrified or that in your opinion something is terrifying but ... . The point is that for many years now the word terrorism is not being used to imply terror, it is being used to describe the illegal use of violence by none state actors for political ends, and as such is is a pejorative political label. If it were not, then the word would be used to describe the despotic rules of a nations who maintain power by cowering their unfortunate populations. -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you ascribe to me was, I believe, written by Cerejota. As to the rest, your argument is not with me, it is with the reliable sources who use the word terrorist. We merely repeat what reliable sources say, we do not pass judgment on their use of terms. IronDuke 19:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! (I have struck out my initial attribution). It is not with reliable sources, it is with the presentation of those reliable sources that we differ. --PBS (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, it was an honest mistake. How would you present these reliable sources? IronDuke 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If a reliable source describes a person, group or action using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation." --PBS (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if multiple reliable sources use it? What if the sources approach unanimity? IronDuke 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally find a source that says "most" and attribute that source (without that most becomes a weasely term), but failing that choose a couple of the most reliable sources, and attribute the fact to them -- It is done all the time with accusations of genocide, where the International Association of Genocide Scholars resolutions are useful for this. --PBS (talk)

I must say I differ with IronDuke on his focus reliable sources. I will say it again:

The WP:5P need for NPOV overrides everything. In many discussions many people forget this. Lets not do it here: NPOV trumps all.
There is a difference between citing sources and quoting sources. When citing, we use our *own* words and the source verifies the information. When quoting, we must use the *same* words as the source. One of the reasons wikipedia frowns upon quoting is because it breaks NPOV: a source can be both reliable and non-neutral. It is precisely the non-neutrality of sources that leads to WP:WTA. If we said, as IronDuke proposes, whatever the sources say, we would break neutrality, which is unacceptable.

IronDuke, I believe you are mistaken in continuing to argue for an RS-based solution in view of the above argument: you are not addressing neutrality, which is the central and overriding concern and fundamental basis of WTA and WP:TERRORIST. Please tell us how do you think that using the language of non-neutral reliable sources keeps NPOV. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a neutral source, all sources have biases. But together, they form our articles. RS is what makes NPOV NPOV. Without, the policy doesn't mean anything. And I quote from said policy "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." If virtually every sources says IronDuke is a terrorist, he's a terrorist. If there's significant, minority disagreement, we note what the two positions are, and which one is favored by more scholars, journalists, etc. If they are equal, then we use language to reflect that deadlocked opinion. IronDuke 23:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at consensus

I think I see a forming consensus about this. How about this as a guideline, but re-worded somewhat. "If there is any legitimate debate over if 'Terrorist' or similar words is correct to use a group, then neutral wording and a principle of avoiding conflict would suggest use of alternative words as the best way to avoid issues. However, if there is no serious dispute over the use of the words, they may be included unless there is a better term to use." --Barberio (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the section in what I hope is a reflection of something we can all agree on. Otherwise, please revert it. --Barberio (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit to bring it in line with what I see consensus as being. IronDuke 21:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it there because I do not see a clear consensus that the wording should be changed in such a way. Why not hold a straw poll and see if there is a consensus? --PBS (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My version after all did have at least ten seconds of life for people to see before you unilaterally reverted it all back to your own preferred version (not the stable one of months back). Can't see why anyone would have a problem with that. IronDuke 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After consideration, I support IronDuke's edits. I also want to ask Philip that, considering that three editors so far seem to agree on the wording, does he disagree and so dispute the consensus, or was the revert pro-forma because no 'poll' has been taken?

If so, there is no such requirement to poll where there is no actual dispute over consensus. If there's a fix to the wording, and no one is finding it objectionable, then we don't prolong a dispute.

On Wikipedia Polls are only supposed to be used in these disputes to try to gather consensus around various conflicting options, and are explicitly not a requirement to demonstrate consensus. They are a tool for helping a discussion, not the legalistic end to one. --Barberio (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the statement "These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article" seems to really reflect what WP:NPOV is about and what we should be doing. Our job is not to judge, but only to report, as such we should be attributing the terms' usage, not mentioning them in an unqualified narrative voice.VR _talk 00:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barberio does VR's comment answer your question? The wording similar to that before ID changed it has been in place for well over a year, and few editors have challenged it, which suggests that it has broad support. --PBS (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it seems clear to me, PBS, that we are at an impasse, and that I am not precisely alone in my opinion. Do you consider yourself capable of being moved off your position, or shall we go to a more formal RFC-like setting? Ray (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there should be more opinions here before either side can claim consensus. Starting an RFC may not be a bad idea.VR _talk 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "terrorist" is politically loaded, judgmental, subjective and has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia other than as a quote or in a discussion of the word itself. Most of humanity would regard George Bush as a War Criminal; should we be free to apply that judgement in Wiki articles as a descriptive adjective? Or may we only apply American nationalist pov here? Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if a majority of reliable sources called GWB a war criminal, his article would reflect that. They don't, so it doesn't. IronDuke 15:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess they do; just not in the Anglosphere. We need to avoid systemic American bias on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine if the entirety of the non-English speaking world thinks he is a war criminal (not even close to true, but let's just say). We still don't define him as one, since we use sober, reliable sources, not polemical hyperbole. IronDuke 16:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke; your reply there exemplifies precisely why we must avoid the biased, subjective, polemical pov term "terrorist" - because as used in the Anglosphere it is 24 carat POV. Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you are trying to say. IronDuke 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what my reply has to do with it. If reliable sources were evenly split, we'd reflect that, no matter where they came from. If they were heavily in favor if ine side, we'd reflect that, too. I don't know of anyone who thinks what you think about the word being "24 carat POV." I can't think of anyone who thinks so as a matter of principle and in all cases. Can you? IronDuke 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke, this is a very biased way of viewing sources, and inherently non-neutral. I disagree strongly with your assertion that "if a majority of reliable sources called GWB a war criminal, his article would reflect that". I would only call him a war-criminal in wikipedia if he was charged with war-crimes in an internationally recognized War Crimes Court, and this fact was reported in reliable sources. I would never call him a terrorist, even if all the sources in the world said so, except if he actually personally partook on actual terrorist actions: even if the US armed forces did terrorist actions (which they have in the past) it would make the direct participants terrorists, but the political leadership adopting terrorist tactics, and it wouldn't make the US armed forces, from the perspective of a NPOV encyclopedia, terrorists. Even if all the sources said so. I know this is not the "normal" way, but this isn't a blog, or a news aggregator or an editorial site, it is an NPOV encyclopedia, and that's a tall order that requires thinking out of our boxes. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, your opinion about what constitutesa war criminal may be correct, but is irrelevant. It is what reliable sources say, only and always, not what Cerjeota or IronDuke says, that controls here. IronDuke 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source can be both reliable and non-neutral, and neutrality requires we evaluate and by a process of discussion determine if a source is neutrally reporting. In that process, our opinions do matter, and we need to build consensus. That is why we discuss things. The truth is, there is nothing set in stone, but the principles are common sense. This tends to break down when people adopt "us v them" mentality, or fail to abandon their soapboxes at the door. And a way we have to ensure this doesn't happen is by avoiding certain words, even if they are sourced. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if sources are in virtual unanimity, we don't need to worrry if one or two have biases. IronDuke 00:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied7, dated 2008-12-12

I have been pushing, with much success, for a formulation and principle regarding terrorist organizations. Since we must be neutral, yet we must also give our readers information, I believe the List of designated terrorist organizations is very useful. This list is very neutral as it just presents the opinion of specific governments that a given organization is a terrorist organization.

My formulation is:

"Organization" is a "militant/paramilitary/partisan" organization, considered a terrorist organization by "relevant countries from the list", among others.

For example:

Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Pakistan-based militant organization, considered a terrorist organization by India, the United States, the United Kingdom, among others.

I have proposed it and is being used via consensus in November 2008 Mumbai attacks.

I think this is the type of usage WP:TERRORIST encourages and I am happy we do it this way. It both satisfies NPOV, but gives our readers all the information they need to balance their opinions: a wikilink to a hopefully neutral article on the organization in question, and a wikilink to a sourced and neutrally presented view of world governments on the terrorist status of a given organization. Governments by definition are not neutral, and wikipedia should never be their mouthpiece, but we must present their opinions of organizations. This way our readers can reach their own conclusions. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good deal to be said about separating the use of the term "terrorist" as a noun, or adjective applied to persons, as opposed to the use of terrorist as applied to activities. It is something of an arbitrary distinction where meaning and grammar are concerned, but the emotional impact of the former is inarguably greater than the latter. Ray (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we are at least understanding each other, even if we disagree.

Emotionality is precisely what neutrality is about. As I said above, NPOV requires we do uncoventional things in order to keep it, and it is only natural, as Wikipedia is a unique effort in its NPOV policy (not even Britannica has such a lofty goal: they care only about factual accuracy).

However, I am very keen on the distinction between "terrorist" as an action, and it use to describe people or organizations, not just because of neutrality, but because it is bad language. Terrorism is not a profession or an ideology, but a method of violence. This is different from the wikineutrality debate, and is a beef I have from having learned English academically and have it with the entire media which misuses the term for emotional effect (I have the same beef with the Hindi and Muslim media on their use of the term "martyr") .

But it did open, in my mind, a way to offer some compromise. If we concentrate on using this word only for the actions that are RS/V as terrorist, and only for the individuals that directly took part in a terrorist action, and use language like "directed the terrorist attacks" or "Confession of terrorist", then we can use the word terrorist without violating neutrality. But using it in the "X is a terrorist organization" or "FigureY is a terrorist" (specially in BLP) is total no-no in neutrality. See my example about with the LeT, which apparently directed the Mumbai attacks.

As a side note, wikipedia is unique not only on neutrality but also on the prohibition on Original Research (most encyclopedias encourage original research) and my perennial favorite, verifiability not truth. These all require we think out of the box, because they are counter-intuitive; WP:OR requires we sourced things that we know to be true (such as birthdays of notables) and to refrain from writing even logical conclusions or synthesis unless sourced and WP:V requires that we contrast information so as to ensure factual accuracy, and leads to information contrary to what we feel is the truth being used (for example, we have to say that according to geological science the earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is against the religious truth of many). In the same way, neutrality requires we speak "funny". Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current guidelines are much clearer and more logically consistent with WP:NPOV than any alternative I've seen suggested on this page. If it ain't broke don't break it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Would you care to share your reasoning with us? It is difficult to have a discussion with somebody who only makes categorical statements and will not share their logic. Ray (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, I have posted my rationale throughout this page! Repetition isn't necessary. Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I must have missed it. Apologies. Ray (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most charitable explanation :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cerejota you worote "However, I am very keen on the distinction between "terrorist" as an action, and it use to describe people or organizations, not just because of neutrality, but because it is bad language." I understand the distinction you are making, but using the word terrorist to describe an action is just as controversial. See my comment above to IronDuke "When the IRA exploded bombs against economic targets like the Bishopsgate bomb, were those not terrorist attacks? If they were, then presumably motive does not enter into it, ...". As the recent troubles went on for decades the general public began to distinguish different types of attacks, see the different reaction in Britain and Ireland to the Bishopsgate bombing (April 1993) and the Warrington bombing (March 1993), but tying to draw that distinction as a general rule for editors of Wikipedia is next to impossible.[6] --PBS (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but the point I was making was disclosing my opinion on the matter outside of wikipedia: while "terrorist" would still be a non-neutral description if applied to an IRA action, it would still be correct English. But describing the IRA or a member of the IRA as a terrorist, doesn't sound right in English, at least how it was taught to me, it sounds like Tabloid English or American Advertising Vernacular. That said, a lot of this has been mooted in recent years not by the media, but by law makers and governments, who have implemented anti-terrorist laws that have given us both an usage and a definition outside of dictionaries and common usage. Some of these laws are so ambiguous in their definitions that they have been sent back to lawmakers by the courts. However, this definition, as per Wikipedia's definition of what is prevalent opinion is very important: what a government says, even if its Iran, has to be taken very seriously.

This is why I am so keen in sourcing claims of terrorist in wikipedia from the List of designated terrorist organizations rather than from terrorist (which I consider OR in most cases), it gives us a very definite, neutral, presentation of facts. Instead of calling an organization terrorist, which can be subject of debate, we just say: it is considered terrorist by X government, which is an unquestionable fact. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied9, dated 2009-03-25

Question: Should the wording of WP:TERRORIST be worded to recognize there are acceptable usages of terrorist as a straightforward descriptive term, or is the term to be disallowed from the narrative voice of Wikipedia as inherently non-neutral?

I thought it's time for an RFC, since this one isn't going away. Commenters are requested to look in the section above, and the WT:WTA archives for previous discussion on the topic. If you take issue with my wording of the question, feel free to suggest alternative formulations for discussion as well. Ray^Talk 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Position by Ray We in Wikipedia are allowed to call a spade a spade, and that is precisely what's happening here. We don't always know whether the use of the term "terrorist" is appropriate. It can be a non-neutral labelling. But there are incontestable cases where it is appropriate and a straightforward statement of fact. Here's an example: "The 2008 Mumbai attacks were more than ten coordinated shooting and bombing terrorist attacks across Mumbai, India's financial capital and its largest city." Here's another: "On March 11, 2004, 10 bombs exploded on four trains in Madrid, killing some 200 people and injuring some 1,500 others in the worst terrorist incident in Europe since World War II." from Britannica. Terrorist can be a a controversial word, but it is not always one. It is not a Word Which Must Be Censored. Ray^Talk 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current formulation of WP:TERRORIST recognizes acceptable uses of the word and does not disallow it, so it is not clear what you are trying to accomplish with this RfC. Are you trying to tilt the deck toward a more free use of the word? If so I would oppose that. Although the exact wording of this particular section has changed there is longstanding consensus on the guideline page and throughout the encyclopedia that like all labels the word should be used carefully, and only when there is some explanatory value in doing so. The question of labeling certain people as terrorists been the subject of intense, prolonged dispute in article space, with those seeking to apply the word often being among our most tendentious POV editors. These disputes are often quelled in reference of this guideline, as well as WP:BLP. Anything that would give them more license to push their agendas on the encyclopedia is likely to be destabilizing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose any language change that would suggest the term terrorist is EVER "a straightforward descriptive term". In the very very very slight chance that such a possible use does exist for a particular article, we have WP:IAR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, echoing RPOD. It's hardly ever (as in, one percent of one percent of one percent of cases) a straightforward descriptive term. And when it is, we have more descriptive and less controversial words. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose statement.

WP:WTA doesn't censor, in so far as the problem is not the terms themselves, but how they are used. For example, there are certainly cases where the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" can be used, for example when writing about the terms themselves, when used in direct quotes, or in its equivalents, like List of designated terrorist organizations (ie, they are "designated terrorist" by a defined body of opinion.), or when describing actions that are overwhelmingly described as terrorist by RS. Censorship would be prohibiting the use of the word, even in those cases. The "censorship" argument is unconvincing in this regards, but also would apply to the rest of WTA if taken as true. In that case, I suggest an MfD be pursued, or this line of argument be abandoned. Calling upon editors, based on community experience, to avoid certain words because of the negative effects they have on encyclopedic quality is never censorship. In addition, since no one in years of discussion has argued for "censorship" (except some cases of bad faith puppetry), this takes the flavor of a strawman.
As one of the major editors of 2008 Mumbai attacks, I can say they we developed a consensus that I feel fits even the current wording of WP:TERRORIST we call the attacks terrorist, but not the attackers, the organizations or any other subject. This is an example of why WTA is useful: it made editors conscious of the potential neutrality issues of doing this, even in the midst of passionate soapboxing. In particular early in the article, a large number of new editors inserted highly speculative information (see Erroneous reporting on the 2008 Mumbai attacks) most of it with a clear POV. It now a good article, which is amazing when you consider that only a few months have passed from the events. And I will be talking from personal experience when I say WP:TERRORISM was a large part of what made it possible: it helped focus the discussion and editing towards the presenting of the facts rather than the presenting of a description of the facts.
In other words, rather than being WP:CREEPy, WP:TERRORIST already provides dividends in improving the quality of the encyclopedia. WP:IAR, which I consider the most important rule in wikipedia, has it converse in this statement: when a rule helps you improve the encyclopedia, obey it. WP:TERRORISM is never used to punish editors, but it does help keep articles focused. I will retract this statement if I am provided with a diff or topic ban that exclusively over violations of WP:TERRORISM. This also has the flavor of strawman.
All said an done, the section also includes "extremist" and "freedom fighter". The lack of focus in these terms leads me to conclude that in reality this argument is a politically motivated one, by editors who agree with points of view that sustain that calling someone "terrorist" is a neutral characterization. A simple perusal of RS on the topic, or even Definition of terrorism, demonstrates this to be a fallacy: the term is a pejorative term when used plainly, and in certain jurisdictions it is a defined term as a crime. There is no generalized acceptance of the term as being neutral: no serious commentator argues as such in any RS. Of course, certain political advocates and partisans use the term: "The US armed forces are terrorist", "The Pakistani government is terrorist", "Ronald Reagan supported terrorism in Nicaragua" etc etc etc. But should we use the term in the encyclopedic voice? The answer, quite plainly is no. For the few exceptions, we can WP:IAR. I mean, WP:RS is policy
If we remove WP:TERRORISM, immediately there will be a deterioration of quality in the encyclopedia. For example, 2008 Mumbai attacks would immediately be invaded by Hindi ultra-nationalists with axes to grind against Pakistan. These are very concrete concerns impacting encyclopedic quality. WP:TERRORISM works, and in general, specific discussion, rather than the abstract, meta-discussion we are having, those who oppose WP:TERRORISM tend to be the editors who least support NPOV, who are okay with systemic bias, and who believe, somehow, that only the Anglo-American view point matters. Civil POV pushers, in other words.
In general adjectives and adverbs should be avoided as much as possible. We should present the facts, not opinions of the facts.
Last, but not least: this discussion is a beat of a storm in tea-cup: the reality is that the word "terrorist" was why WTA was started on the first place, and revisiting the longstatnding consensus, when there are no examples of community sanctioned censorship or punishment, seems to be more motivated by politics than encyclopedic quality.--Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any expansion of the existing use of the word. This is a word that must be used with extreme (no pun intended) caution, even when describing an event (as alluded to by Cerejota). It is my personal feeling that each and every use of the word must be properly attributed, and it should not be used by Wikipedia's voice at all. It is impossible for the term to be used in a non-neutral manner. There will always be someone who believes "terrorist" or "act of terrorism" are unfair labels. In the case of Mumbai, I think the use of "terrorist" is understandable, but ultimately unacceptable because there are people who do not believe the attacks were acts of terrorism. I'd be happy to see those terrorists die a violent and horrible death, but I still don't think Wikipedia should use the terms without attribution. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is sometimes used with little or no opposition. In those cases, I see no reason why we can't use it in the narrative (with good cites, of course). Failing to do so would violate a number of more serious guidelines and policies than this one. IronDuke 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? --Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Really, the whole problem here is, in my opinion, the result of the unfortunate practice of linking to specific sections in WP:WTA, rather than the whole guideline. The very opening of the guideline: "There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article, but some words may mark contentious or unclear presentation" provides what we need. Unfortunately, if you read the title of the page "Words to avoid", and then the section on terrorism, it sounds like we're saying it's unacceptable to use the word, which just isn't the case. I've long thought that we should call the page Wikipedia:Words to use with care, but it seems a bit overly bold to just up and move the page myself. WTA is not a blacklist, it's advice. Sadly, the current title doesn't make this clear. Cool3 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, there's an even simpler fix. Over at WP:ATA, the text "Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection." is presented along with each subsection. I'm going to place a similar notice at the top of the terrorist section so that the broader context is clear. Cool3 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to all the other sections you missed, and changed the wording to the correct title of the article. Nice try, very good towards making all of us assume good faith.--Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks messy to have so many instructions for people to read the entire guideline, something that goes without saying and would in theory apply to every policy and guideline page in the project. Wikidemon (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if it goes in one section here, it goes in all. As to going everywhere in the project, I disagree. It seems people's cognitive dissonances only surface when their political correctness (mostly conservative political correctness) is challenged. Otherwise smart people seem to turn into dumb rocks the minute their carefully constructed epistemology get challenged and they realize that "Fair and Balanced" is not just a slogan to some other people, who actually strive for fairness and balance, even for those who they hate. So we spoon feed them the obvious, and wear our Captain Obvious unitards with pride. --Cerejota (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment any user who confuses the word "Avoid" in the title of the article "Words to avoid" with "Words that are censored in Wikipedia" is not likely to be someone who would be able to use the word "terrorist" in a proper fashion anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I must say I see WP:WTA often used as "Words to avoid like the plague", and that's not the proper spirit of the guideline. Sadly, there are wikilawyers out there who are all about the letter of the policy/guideline. Cool3 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also wikilawyers that like to cite WP:IAR too often, specially when rules go against their POVs. If people had the common decency of not using terms like "terrorist" or of not trying to weasel word their POVs into the project, this rule wouldn't be needed. Also, if pigs flew, we would all need steel umbrellas.--Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose terrorist should never be used as a straightforward descriptive term by Wikipedia. Even people that 99% of us would agree are "terrorists" (say, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed) should not be described this way ("convicted of terrorism" charges is of course, now and should always be, allowed if properly cited). The epithet is only useful if you want to smear the subject beyond which their own proven actions already do. I.e. It is always preferable to say "so and so was convicted of planning to blow up a bomb in a train station" than to say "so and so is a terrorist." There are so many instances of the terrorist/freedom fighter variety they aren't worth listing; nothing is lost by this restriction (in fact, it leads to more encyclopedic precision) and much is gained by the conflict avoided when POV pushers are stopped from using a weakened guideline to call Gerry Adams, Bibi Netanyahu, Controversialpublicfigureofyourchoice a "terrorist."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fairer wording of the question would leave out the reason for leaving things as they are; i.e., "Question: Should the wording of WP:TERRORIST be worded to recognize there are acceptable usages of terrorist as a straightforward descriptive term, or is the term to be disallowed?" I don't know whether usage of 'terrorist/terrorism' in the encyclopedia's narrative voice is inherently POV, but as a practical matter in the real world wikipedia environment a clear policy helps people focus on substantive work rather than immersing us continuously in case-by-case arguments over particular attempts to have the encyclopedic voice label acts, people, and groups terrorist/terrorism. It is just so darn easy to say "allegedly terrorist" or "RS X classified as terrorist" and so on, why open up a can of worms? I'm currently working on much related problematic/controversial/disputed usage at 'history of terrorism' (if anyone wants to observe a current example of 'bogged down on the talk page, not moving forward on substance').Haberstr (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support In some cases I think its useful to use the term for the simple fact that this term is commonly used to describe certain events, and as such it would be useful to the reader, rather than avoiding it and alluding to the term, Particularly when articles include the word terrorism in the title, surely once you've got it in the title of the articles its a nonsense to then pretend the term doesn't exist. Sherzo (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about legislation ("Terrorism Act of ..."), works of fiction and stuff like that, I suppose it makes sense; however, for actual people or events I would be shocked if a version of the word appeared in an article title. "Terrorist attacks on ..." would not be neutral (or necessary), for example. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Nobody should be trying to "[get] it in the title," as you put it. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering more to articles such as Terrorism Sherzo (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it goes without saying, as we do not censor and call spades, spades. I am adding some language, as I do not see this as a good reason to remove the section. --Cerejota (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per Cerejota. The introduction of this very page takes care of the issue the proposer wants to have addressed. No need for a change. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in that I support the current status quo. See the section above this one, I was doing a Google search on ["style guide" terrorist] it threw up this article. What is relevant to this discussion is the line "According to Wiki, Israelis ‘described him (Arafat) as a terrorist for the many attacks his factions led against civilians’ during the Isreal/Palestine conflict." Much better that our article is quoted as saying that, than "According to Wiki Arafat is a terrorist...". This show that WP:WTA is doing what the editors who support a paragraph on terrorism intend, and projecting a NPOV to other parties. --PBS (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any expansion of the existing use of the word. It is not a simple descriptive term like "bomber", "gunman", "soldier" etcetera. It is a loaded propagandistic term widely used by those who oppose the political aims of the so-called "terrorists". Thus we have an impossibly high bar to describing the actions of Western Armies as "terrorist" and need "reliable" sources in the MSM to support such usage when clearly the MSM in the Anglosphere shares the POV that describes only its opponents as "terrorist". Promoting or endorsing the prevalent POV of the Western establishment is incompatable with Wiki policy of WP:NPOV. I am amazed that anyone can think the term "terrorist" is anything other than a pejoritive propagandistic label. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this sentiment wholeheartedly. Sarah777 has done a far better job than I of encapsulating the problem with this pejorative term. It is already grossly overused. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, of course. Any attack that deliberately targets civilians is terrorism. It is a terrorist attack. Anyone who carries out such an attack is a terrorist. The logic is unquestionable. people who want to delete the word from our collective lexicon need to say something to answer that logic. If it can be shown that civilians were deliberately targeted/killed... then WP:SPADE applies. See the 9/11 attacks for a sterling example of a terrorist attack, carried out by terrorists. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, you are mistaken in this black-and-white use, and your logic is completely bogus and questionable. In all wars, in every war, civilians are deliberately targeted. Dresden bombing, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc. The use of the term "terrorist" is almost exclusively used by political opponents of whatever actor performed the attack. No one wants to delete the term of our collective lexicon, what we want to do is to ensure that the usage of the term in the encyclopedic voice is given context and validity. You very post exemplifies why WTA is needed: you sustain a position that is not supported by many people, a POV, and that is anathema to an NPOV encyclopedia. What an NPOV encyclopedia should do is describe, not label. You and others argue that terrorism and terrorist are simple descriptors, but they are not, they are pejorative labels. If they were simple descriptors, we would apply it without categorization to every military force who has attacked civilians, and we don't, and efforts to do so meet resistance (for example, terrorist actions by State actors, or by non-State actors who are now a State actor are never labeled as such). If the term were indeed used asa general descriptor, and not a pejorative label, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This encyclopedia is meant to provides facts, not opinions or emotionally charged, POV motivated labels.--Cerejota (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YAWN. Deliberately targeting civilians.. with the primary objective of using destruction as a propaganda weapon.. is terrorism. Please do not export your POV to Wikipedia. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would still make Hiroshima a terrorist attack, then. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will your next post suggest that the 9/11 attackers were freedom fighters? All this "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" crap confounds an editorial interpretation of an act with the tangible characteristics of the act itself. The 9/11 attack was not a military attack, and was not carried out by a military force during a formally declared war. The Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks were both military in nature and military in goals and objectives. Our Hiroshima/Nagasaki articles are POV, by the way. Those pull quotes emphasize one POV over another. But of course, this is Wikipedia. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop moving the goalposts then. You're changing your definition of terrorism because we're shooting down definitions that can encompass acts by the ever-so-perfect US Army. And this is the problem. We have no fixed definition of terrorism. And we can't apply consistency either, because some people won't let us. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) WP:YAWN again. I'm only moving the goalposts because I just now started thinking about this question. You said "some people won't let us".. now that is the truth. People are deliberately obfuscating the issue ("another man's freedom fighter") as a means of avoiding scrutiny of their pet group.. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that this is not about what is right and what is wrong. This is about making Wikipedia neutral and accurate for the benefit of all, without resorting to classifications and characterizations that may be prejudicial toward a particular group. Take the 9/11 attackers as an example - to me, the people who planned this attack are terrorist dogs who should be hunted down and exterminated with extreme prejudice and physical discomfort; however, it still don't think that Wikipedia should brand them as "terrorists" because some people (rightly or wrongly) see these scum as crusaders fighting for their religious beliefs. Others even regard them as heroes! After the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo (to name just recent, rather historical events), a significant chunk of the world's population regard some Americans as terrorists, and America as a terrorist state. Should Wikipedia classify the USA as a terrorist state? Should Wikipedia characterize some Americans as terrorists for what happened at these prisons? Isn't torture a form of terrorism, particular when it was carried out upon people who turned out to be completely innocent? I doubt you would think so. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Hiroshima or Dresden Terrorist attacks is equally POV if not more so, Those were both military targets, the primary objective was not to terrorize the civilian population, since the Allies had warned all enemy civilians to leave the cities or any place vital to the enemy military, so callously throwing around such an unfounded and bias accusation not only betrays your own POV Cerejota, but shows a complete lack of respect for those men and women who gave their lives, without whom sacrifice we would not have wikipedia let alone this debate. So perhaps you should think before you make such remakes Sherzo (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surely some common sense in a definition is all that is needed? its a form of clandestine asymmetrical warfare, aimed at a political goal. Sherzo (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, your personal definition (consider using the dictionary) fails. An act widely considered terrorist, the OKC federal bldg bombing, was neither military nor aimed at a political goal. And, of course, Cerejota and I are not "callously throwing around . . . an unfounded and bias accusation" when we recognize that the attacks on Dresden and Hiroshima are widely considered acts of terrorism. We are simply recognizing that many RS do make such an accusation. We need to recognize in the encyclopedia the disputed nature of the term, and that 'terrorism' has multiple meanings for most RS. That means including some opinions on the matter that will make good people of various political stripes uncomfortable. That diverse discomfort means you're doing a good job writing about this emotionally charged matter, in my opinion.Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the attacks on Dresden and Hiroshima are widely considered acts of terrorism, according to whom? --Tom (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)ps, I have read the articles about this debate, the use of the word "widely" is what I would take issue with. --Tom (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the word "widely" in the encyclopedia. "Widely" is accurate but a weasel word. I would write, "some scholars consider" those acts terrorist acts.Haberstr (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, there's no rule saying that you can't use the word terrorism in the 9/11 article. Since about a hundred thousand reliable sources called it that, it's easy enough to find a citation and attribute the claim that they were terrorist attacks. Since it's best to cite everything we put in an article anyway, this shouldn't be a problem. With events like 9/11, you could almost undoubtedly find reliable sources that would allow you to make statements like "9/11 was almost universally considered a terrorist act" or something to that effect. Cool3 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that we're having this debate here— on the "Words to Avoid" forum—is a clear sign of Wikipedia editors' POV. They have no respect for such sources, and will wipe them away if possible. I repeat: People are deliberately obfuscating the issue as a means of avoiding scrutiny of their pet group.. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are too many definitions of "terrorism" to use it as an unqualified descriptor. We need context. Most definitions of definitions would also make FDR, Churchill, Thatcher, and/or Bush terrorists. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I am concerned at the way this discussion is going, with accusations of bias now being leveled at certain editors. We seem to have reached the point where if we don't agree that a free use of the word "terrorist" (and derivatives) in the Wikipedia narrative is okay, the... er... terrorists win! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all try to maintain some good faith here. Terrorist is a terrifically charged word, but I don't think that anyone is trying to cover up the misdeeds of Al-Qaeda (on the one hand) or start the Winston Churchill article by saying "Winston Churchill was a terrorist" (on the other). I think it's also helpful to take a look at articles like Hezbollah, which I think does a pretty good job of dealing with the terrorist issue: "It is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.[3] However the group is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, Canada, and the Netherlands. The United Kingdom has placed its military wing on its list of proscribed terrorist organisations,[5] while Australia considers part of its military structure, the External Security Organisation, a terrorist organization." This wording "covers the controversy", and brings up the charge that Hezbollah is a terrorist group without labeling. Isn't this a way of doing things that we can all agree on? Cool3 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas and Provisional IRA do pretty much the same thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and if you look at some of these articles, List of designated terrorist organizations is used for attribution via wikilink, which I think is great. I personally placed this on the 2008 Mumbai attacks article. I think this is the formula to use, an certainly presents the facts in an NPOV manner: it neither accepts nor denies a description as terrorist: it attributes labels to clearly identifiable sources of support and criticism, to let the readers decide. And this goes to all words that label: we should never allow the encyclopedic voice to label anything without proper attribution. That is the central matter. --Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we are being trolled. Ling.Nut posted "retired" banners in his talk page and user page on the 23rd of march. It is obvious his contributions are not on good faith - he obviously has a bone to pick with the project itself. One thing I will say, regardless of were we are in the discussion, is that all of us seem to have the best interest of the project as generally understood in mind. So it is reasonable and healthy we disagree and discuss. However, when someone questions the very existence of the project, we should all band together to defend it.--Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there many circumstances where it actually adds to the informational value of an article to describe individuals or groups as terrorists? Clearly, where this an even halfway-credible debate as to whether a group is terrorist or not (as in the cases of Hamas and Provisional IRA, for example), we should summarise that debate using reliable sources. But does the word really do any useful work in, for example, the current first sentence of 2008 Mumbai attacks? Barnabypage (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the use of the word "terrorist" in that particular sentence is completely unacceptable, and totally unnecessary. Leaving aside my dislike for the actual phrasing of that sentence, I think preceding the word "attacks" with "terrorist" in that example adds no value. It is a pretty blatant example of a POV qualifier. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never use the word terrorist in wikipedia's voice, please. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Terrorism" is not something that can be clearly defined. It's just something that depends on your point of view and your beliefs. What one calls terrorism can be called freedom fighting by another. A perfect example is given by Cool3 above. The effort to create a definition of our own for the word when experts all around the world have failed to agree on one is really nice, but if we go by the definitions given by several people here, it classifies even units of national militaries as terrorist organizations. Does anybody call SOG a terrorist organization? I don't think so. As for Ling.Nut's argument about attacks taking place where there is no declared war, then don't the numerous attacks carried out by the LTTE (who are 'officially' at war with the military of Sri Lanka) count as terrorist attacks? Chamal ^talk 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can be defined. A dictionary does a good job at it. --neon white talk 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was no formal declaration of war in the "War on Terror", so basically under Ling.Nut's definition, the USA has conducted terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last 7 years. From the perspective of millions of people in the world, that wouldn't sound to ridiculous a notion. It clearly demonstrates why using derivatives of the word "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice is a Bad Thing™ -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I really can't think of an example where "terrorist" is both uncontroversial and has to be used to convey all the information. E.g. "The 2008 Mumbai attacks were more than ten coordinated shooting and bombing terrorist attacks across Mumbai, India's financial capital and its largest city." Removing "terrorist" here doesn't remove any information and that word turns out to be in essence a redundancy and unwanted for GAs, FAs, etc. Thus, I see no reason to recommend its usage, as it will just lead to endless battles whether X is an act of terrorism or not, and unnecessarily badger the article. Wikipedia doesn't say "Adolf Hitler was a bad man", which is far less disputed than "IRA is a terrorist organization". —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support There are clearly examples where it is not only appropriate but unavoidable if an article is to be completed to a decent standard. Eric Robert Rudolph was a good test case. The consensus agreed that using the word was inevitable as his notability was entirely based on a terrorist attack and reliable sources were clear on the matter. Terrorist is a discriptive word with no other substitute in the english language so it must be used. --neon white talk 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't need to encourage the use of a judgement-laden word without a clearly agreed-on definition. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My personal preference would be to use the word to describe any person, organisation, army or government that uses terror systematically. However, as many of these are very popular and the word is more usually seen as pejorative rather than descriptive, I believe it would be very difficult for Wikipedia to maintain a consistent approach in this regard. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's like calling someone a Nazi. Unless they are self-avowed Nazis, like Hermann Goering or George Lincoln Rockwell, there's no point in it. Let the facts speak for themselves. Dlabtot (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied8, dated 2010-05-19

During the merge there has been a substantiate changing to the treatment of the use of the word terrorism and the phrase freedom fighter, so I am reinserting the original text and look forward to helping to make any constructive changes to the wording that would help to illuminate the issue, not not alter the meaning. -- PBS (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. As before, the material you wish to insert is verbose, repetitive, and wildly disproportionate to the treatment of any other words in this guideline. There is nothing so spectacular about "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" that they require this breadth of coverage. It is already noted that they "can be especially provocative"—the combination of that, the emphasis on wide use in authoritative sources, and the list of possible alternatives is perfectly sufficient.

I will repeat the offer I made before that you choose to completely ignore, benefiting neither yourself nor the guideline. If you can express, in a clear, concise sentence, a significant point concerning "terrorist/freedom fighter" that is currently missing from this guideline that you feel should be added, I'll be happy to work with you toward its inclusion. If you cannot, that is a strong indication that what you want is not appropriate for a viable, comprehensible, focused Wikipedia style guideline page.—DCGeist (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that statements like "no way" helps to build a consensus?

The are several things missing. I suggest that we go through them one at a time and until there is agreement to remove the points that the original text stands unchanged. The original text being the text from the guideline from which this guideline was merged.

which sentence do you think repetitive?
"disproportionate" is no justification for cutting something down so that it does not give guidance, perhaps instead as has been noted by some other editors other sections are too terse.
the word and phrase are not "especially provocative". They are "contentious" and if they are "especially provocative" there is no explanation give as to why the are provocative? What makes them provocative and not "contentious"?

-- PBS (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to build a consensus. There is a consensus. I began my response with "No way" to indicate to you that your slow-motion, but blatant, edit warring over this matter is doomed to failure. If you were willing to work within the parameters of consensus, your input would be welcome; as you have consistently shown that you are not, you can make as much noise as you like, but you will have no effect on the guideline. You keep re-creating the exact problem of Words to avoid that this new guideline was designed to address. Your willful obliviousness to the process that brought us to the style and structure of this new page has grown terminally tiresome.

We are not working from a defunct page, despite your pretenses. We are working from this one. Thus your first two questions are moot. As for the third, it would seem to be clear to everyone but you that in context "especially provocative" is, in practical terms, synonymous with "particularly contentious".

I have offered to work with you on this guideline. You have repeatedly spurned that offer. Very well. I'm done with you, too.—DCGeist (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is not a consensus for the wording I am attempting to work towards a consensus. If you think it a synonymous -- and I do not -- then presumably you do not object to the use of contentious in place of provocative. Which sentence(s) in my preferred version do you think is repetitive? -- PBS (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, while your dedication to this issue is impressive, I do not like the longer text either. When this topic first came up, I wanted to engage you. But I don't now: I think you are wedded to that particular set of paragraphs, and I don't think you are willing to give on a single letter. You insert the same text, word for word and character for character, over and over. I think you call out, "Process violation!" to protect your preferred text, not to protect Wikipedia. I do not think you want to build consensus. I, too, am done with you. Ozob (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this difference I am more than willing to discuss the wording and come to a compromise. But others who are reverting to their preferred versions do not seem willing to do this. Please refresh my memory when did you discuss this issue with me, I would like to reread you comments. -- PBS (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness PBS you've been asked several times by several users to engage with them. This has not happened . Gnevin (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I am engaging with them. I have replied to all the points made and have been willing to make changes to the text. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I can offer my opinion, I think the shorter version is better (I don't think we should be laying down special principles for specific words, which the longer version seems to be trying to do), but I would use "contentious" in place of "provocative".--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made that change.

To see how this process can be productive, PBS, if that's what you're really interested in, simply look below. Blueboar raised a significant point about controversy/controversial that was not covered by our guideline. He added the point in a concise, focused manner. I copyedited for clarity and flow. The result: one additional sentence, one more important point covered, zero conflict or stress.—DCGeist (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the personal remarks, and return to the issue at hand. Which sentence(s) in my preferred version do you think is repetitive? You have stated that in general terms several times, but have yet to explain in detail which parts you think are repetitive. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Let's stop talking about each other and more about the text

My idea : Add some where as a generic to the section on Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias? Also needs a trim

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

The terms "terrorist", and "freedom fighter" are ~~particularly~~ contentious labels because they often carry an implicit viewpoint. Gnevin (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These rules are overly complicated. One of the reasons why I made the edit [7] was because the right rule to invoke is Wikipedia:Verifiability. WP:V is our full, complete, and total description of when we include citations. The above paragraph introduces a new set of criteria which are not quite the same as WP:V's. I would much rather we point readers to WP:V instead. Ozob (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That fine , can we add a note saying if a RS uses the term then it's ok to quote it or is this even over kill? Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozob The problem with the use of the term terrorism (and to a lesser degree freedom fighter) is that it is easy to find multiple sources that accuse someone or some thing of terrorism. The accusation often tells as much about the accusers as it does about the accused. There is a real problem with Wikipedia's systemic bias over this issue because often Wikipeia editors do not even realise that there is a bias in calling someone a terrorist. For example Nelson Mandela had lots of reliable sources calling him a terrorist, but few today would be comftorble in labelling him such. And look at the situation in Northern Ireland, we have in government there people widely vilified as terrorists in lots of reliable sources, yet the Government of the United Kingdom was willing to let a person they had accused of being a terrorist be placed in charge of children's education! (and later to become deputy first minister of the province). It is said that truth is the first victim of war and one of the useful weapons in the arsenal of propaganda is accusations of terrorism. --PBS (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an okay rule for quotations. I don't think it's relevant to the other issue you brought up in your paragraph, which is when we can use terrorist ourselves. Using terrorist just because a single reliable source uses it may violate NPOV. The right guide here is, of course, WP:NPOV. While terrorist is a particularly difficult word, I think the same principles apply to it as to any other word. That's why I think we should limit ourselves here to singling out this word (because it is so difficult) and directing editors who have to overcome that difficulty to Wikipedia policy. Ozob (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are supposed to give guidance. I don't think that sending someone to read the policy is not helpful if they have come from the policy page seeking guidance on how to interpret policy for specific difficulties. -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussion copied from Talk:Al-Qaeda, dated 2010-05-26

The term "terrorist" as factual

Five days ago, IronDuke changed the opening paragraph from:

is an Islamist group

to:

is a terrorist Islamist group

One the side-bar, the fact that it is designated a terrorist organization by several organizations and governments is prominent:

Designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department

Designated as Proscribed Group by the UK Home Office

Designated as terrorist group by EU Common Foreign and Security Policy

The wording on the sidebar is very careful. It doesn't say "is a terrorist organization"; it instead lists notable organizations that classify it as a terrorist organization, and allows readers to decide. This is important because not every notable organization classifies it as a terrorist organization. In addition, many have only classified it as such very recently. This is the embodiment of NPOV. When I reverted, I used the edit summary: "terrorist" is inherently non-neutral. Say who designates it a terrorist organization and who doesn't, and let the reader decide. IronDuke then reverted my edits, citing:

so is "serial killer," and yet...

Though Serial killer may necessarily convey negative emotions, it is a factual label because it's clearly defined. The only reasonable way to dispute a serial killer's status as such would be to dispute the occurrence of the act. Terrorist is not a "factual" label because it is not clearly defined. The US State Department defines it as a terrorist organization; not every organization and government does. Indeed, some would be more inclined to consider Al-Qaeda a resistance group, or even a freedom-fighting group. If there is dispute, Wikipedia should present the dispute, not one particular side. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 02:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to read WP:UNDUE before you make such neutral sounding statements. most countries and RS think of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization including Saudi Arabia & Pakistan. so calling it anything else is inherently non neutral and a form of POV pushing. please provide RS showing that somebody considers Al-qaeda a freedom/resistance movement and then we can give that due weight. that is a fringe opinion which does not belong on WP. also take a look at WP:FRINGE--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating what organizations consider Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization does not give the contrary undue weight. In fact, either solution would give the contrary opinion zero weight. Secondly, the notion that the term "terrorist" is ill-defined is not a "fringe opinion". Many notable scholars and media sources consider terrorism to be ill-defined or even non-definable. An article from the Center for Defense Information that "In attempting to define terrorism, the United Nations may indeed be attempting to define the indefinable."^[1] Additionally, Reuters and the New York Times refuse to use the label "terrorist" because they consider it ill-defined. These are not fringe opinions. By saying it "is a terrorist organization", we push that POV. By saying that the US State Department (which readers recognize as a reliable source) designates it a terrorist opinion, we present the reality in a neutral way. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really you might want to take a look at what New York Times and Time have to say about al-qaeda(NYT), (Time). even in the Islamic world this organization is considered 'terrorist' since a major chunk of its victims happen to be Muslim.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling groups "terrorist" groups is atypical for the New York Times. I thought they didn't use the term as a matter of principle, but apparently was mistaken. I know that Reuters refuses to use the term. The point is that Al-Qaeda's status as a terrorist organization is disputed because the term "terrorist" is so poorly defined. It is NPOV to give proper weight to the opinion that it is. But an opinion should never transcend into the realm of fact.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to use a strongly negative term in the first sentence. Ever wonder why the article on intelligent design doesn't start, "Intelligent design the false notion that..."? In that case, intelligent design's status as "false" is factual. Yet, instead of beginning the article by stating it is incorrect, it later states, "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." Readers recognize scientific consensus as a reliable authority on the matter, and form their own opinions.

I propose a compromise:

Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is widely considered a terrorist organization.

dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get bogged down in analogies, but I will say 1) "Though Serial killer may necessarily convey negative emotions, it is a factual label because it's clearly defined." is false. Serial killers are not clearly defined. Heck, "murderer" is not clearly defined, yet WP uses the word. 2) "Ever wonder why the article on intelligent design doesn't start, "Intelligent design the false notion that..."?" Actually, I never do wonder this. That's because scientists never say that ID is false -- it is, indeed, unfalsifiable. What I have said before, on this very page, is that I have yet to find an RS who claims that OBL is not a terrorist, and literally thousands of sources supporting the idea that he is. IronDuke 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that though we may not have a precise definition of 'terrorism' it is OK to use it since it is so widely used by RSs from around the world particularly as it pertains to Al-qaeda and its activities. at least in the case of this organization overwhelming majority of sources call it a terrorist organization and OBL a terrorist. that may or may not be the case for other organizations but that is another issue.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's alright. While I think that it is dangerous and that the compromise I listed above is preferable, I'm fine with this change. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't realize how strong the language was in WP:LABEL. It appears that the community consensus is that in-text attribution only should be used for contentious labels:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

I think you both formed a compelling argument. However, small-scale consensus cannot override wide-scale consensus. So, for now, I have switched the article back to using in-text attribution only. I have no intention to provoke an edit war. If you want to challenge the consensus, go for it. If the consensus changes to permit the term as factual, or if you show that common sense should encourage it, that's great. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ported from IronDuke's talk

I see you reverted1 2 my edits. I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Al-Qaeda#The term "terrorist" as factual; please share your thoughts.

On a different note, when you reverted my edits, you discarded changes you didn't dispute in the edit summary (see the bottom of the changes). I assumed you didn't (and don't) dispute those changes. It would have been preferable not to throw out the baby with the bath water and to have pasted the non-disputed changes. A cycle of "bold-revert" prevents improvement of the article and is contrary to consensus. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. I posted an update at Talk:Al-Qaeda; re-reading WP:LABEL changed my mind on the issue. WP:LABEL states:

are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution

If you want to challenge the policy, I'd welcome it. (Although I generally support it, I think thinking it through couldn't hurt.) However, the correct place to debate it is WT:WTA, not on individual articles like Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dym, I hope you don't mind my stating this baldly, but you are entirely incorrect. There is no policy, no policy at all, against using the word terrorist. In addition to being inordinately silly, such a policy would violate NPOV. WP:WTA is a style guideline, which itself admits of exceptions. Is it something we should take seriously and keep in mind going forward? Not really. It's always been a poorly written hodgepodge, and never been binding in any case. It really just serves to confuse people. Therefore, in terms of overturning consensus, there is no need for me to "go for it." No such consensus exists. Let me be plain: I have an avalanche of reliable sources to support my view, as well as wiki policy, as well as -- oh yes -- common sense. You have your personal interpretation of a non-binding style guideline. Did you have anything else? IronDuke 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I mistakenly called it "policy" on your talk page; I am aware that it's a guideline. However, I think the guideline nevertheless reflects broader consensus. There has been involved debate with opinions on both sides at WT:WTA. For example, see this archive. Other examples: 1, 2, 3, and 4. You participated in the last one, but there appeared (to me) to be no consensus. I think the appropriate place to debate this is WT:WTA. At the very least, express your opinion there. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I collected some debate at User talk:Dmyersturnbull/Terrorism debate, so that everyone can see the debate. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, aside from the fact that WTA is basically meaningless here, can you respond to my other points? IronDuke 01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll take your points to be:

1. There is no consensus

I would say that there is consensus that the term terrorist should be attributed to specific sources, rather than used as factual. If you read the collection I linked, I expect you'll agree that there is consensus on that particular issue.

2. WP:NPOV is on your side

I think that the term is inherently non-neutral. As you pointed out, serial killer is also non-neutral. However, serial killer is defined more definitely. A murderer is someone who kills a person with intent, and a serial killer is someone who murders more than three people. Terrorism is no better-defined than freedom fighter is.

3. Common sense is on your side

I don't see how (Mind elaborating?). However, my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia.

4. Reliable sources use the term terrorist

We are making an encyclopedia. Not every word that is commonly used needs to be included. What is essential is that we convey the information, not that we use specific terms the media likes. The compromise I suggested conveys the information neutrally and without extrapolation.

5. I am arguing based on a "personal interpretation of a non-binding style guideline"

No, I'm arguing against the overriding of large-scale, long-term consensus with small, limited non-consensus existing at one particular time.

I believe that the correct place to debate this is WT:WTA, not here. Do you have any objection to arguing your point there? Perhaps, in the meantime, we can achieve temporary consensus here:

Describe al-Qaeda's actions as "terrorist" actions. Do not describe al-Qaeda as a "terrorist organization". The first paragraph will begin:

al-Qaeda... is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is widely considered a terrorist organization. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R to bull:

There is no consensus at the collection you linked to, from my memory of my own participation there, and even if there were, it wouldn't matter: WTA has long said that there are exceptions, which is why we debate the merits of the term in this case here, rather than generally there. Obviously so.
Your points are all pretty much off target here. Serial killer is still a vague term, and yet used. As is murderer. And yet we use the terms. And you are particularly wrong about comparing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter." The comparison is frequently made, but no less willfully reductive and obtuse for its ubiquity. There are professors whose sole field of study is terrorism. I know of no reputable professor of "freedom fighting."
"my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia." Your common sense would be very wrong then. I don't have enough time to teach you what language is, and I shouldn't have to: you seem literate enough. We have many, many article here about terms that have no "agreed-upon" definition. The mind boggles, really.
This is where your argument really falls to the ground, no? I have virtually every reliable source in existence on this subject on my side, you have nothing whatever. There is no more to be said than that.
No, you are in fact wiki-lawyering your way around the fact that you have no RS's whatever to support your claim, just a gut feeling and a non-binding style guideline (did I mention how the guideline itself says it is non-binding)?

You seem like a smart enough person, but your position holds no merit at all -- not even a little bit. It's the kind of wiki-navel-gazing that makes some pretty smart people laugh at this encyclopedia, when the "rules" (which as you now know, aren't actually rules) override what virtually every reliable source on the planet says -- media, analysts, government, scholars. How about less bending non-existent rules, and more finding sources? IronDuke 04:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of wikilawyering or using "bull". I don't have a "claim" about Al-Qaeda; I have a claim about what is preferable on the relevant articles. Assuming that I have a hidden agenda is completely unreasonable. I saw your edit and disagreed. I was willing to discuss its merits, and I still am.

I want to address two issues first:

"my common sense tells me that no term lacking an agreed-upon definition belongs in an encyclopedia." Your common sense would be very wrong then. I don't have enough time to teach you what language is, and I shouldn't have to: you seem literate enough. We have many, many article here about terms that have no "agreed-upon" definition. The mind boggles, really.

I failed to explain my point well. My issue isn't that the word doesn't have a precise, mathematically definable meaning. It's that the factors used in defining the word are disputed. Is it the method, the goals, or both? Terms like murderer and serial killer don't have precise mathematical definitions, but their use is not significantly contentious.

And you are particularly wrong about comparing "terrorist" to "freedom fighter." The comparison is frequently made, but no less willfully reductive and obtuse for its ubiquity.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on the subject, nor do I pretend to be.

I don't take WP:RS as religiously as you do. We should not, in my opinion, merely collect reliable sources an stick them together to form an article. Prose is important. General neutrality is important. I believe that the notion that general neutrality and style are important factors has consensus on Wikipedia. Read the intro to the article on the Ku Klux Klan. Is KKK racist? Yes. Is it extremist? Yes. Does every (or nearly every) RS call it a hate group? Yes. Yet, there seems to be consensus not to begin the article with "KKK is a racist, extremist hate group". Just because a reliable source (indeed, even all reliable sources) calls al-Qaeda a terrorist organization doesn't mean we should, much less in the first sentence. I think that WP:NPOV and even WP:MoS should sometimes trump WP:RS. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 18:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a third opinion. I reverted my own edit to Osama bin Laden, leaving the term describing group and persons in all but the first sentence. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, apologies for shortening your name to "bull." People shorten mine to "Duke," and I'm okay with that, so... is there an abbreviation you're okay with, or must one type out the entire thing? Second, apologies if I implied you had a hidden agenda -- it seems quite open to me. Which is fine, I just happen to disagree with it. I'm not sure how useful the analogies you keep bringing up are -- I think it gets us off on a tangent. This is not an article about the KKK, and different factors may be at work there. For the record, I have no problem calling them any of the adjectives you used, though your example is clumsy. Also, when you say things like (ellipses added) "[The term] murderer... is not significantly contentious," you make me feel frankly depressed. I can't even begin to unpack that if you can't see, instantly, why that's very, very wrong (let's just start with the fact that "murder" is defined differently all over the world). I see that you are not an expert on this topic, and there's no shame in that. I invite you, then, to delve more deeply before making more edits on it. You are now using the manual of style (which, as I have shown, does not support your position) to trump RS's, which are the only reason this encyclopedia is any use at all. WP is inherently unreliable, which is why we must use RS's to support important facts. And you can't invoke NPOV when you cannot name a single source which supports your position. Seriously, Wikipedia is, at its best, a work of scholarship. It's okay if you don't want to add to that, but not okay if you want to take away from it , and leave us looking silly into the bargain. I'm happy to have more opinions, but I am going to bring the article back to reality, rather than wikiality; please do some reading before you edit this article or others like it again. IronDuke 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted more generally below. Just wanted to address what you wrote above; the discussion got ahead of me. In the US, 'bull' is used as an abbreviation for 'bullshit'. I had assumed that's what you meant. Dmyersturnbull, dmt, dmyerst, or anything else I'd recognize is perfectly fine with me :) dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

While IronDuke is correct that terrorism should probably be in the lead, I disagree that RS, however many there may be, get to override NPOV. Therefore, I would suggest changing 'It is widely considered a terrorist organization' to 'It is considered a terrorist organization by such organisations as X, Y, and X', and removing those designations from the infobox.— --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "NPOV," what RS's disagree that AQ is a terrorist org? (Thanks for weighing in, BTW). IronDuke 22:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only RS I can think of off-hand which contests the description of Al Qaeda as terrorist, inasmuch as he disagrees with the use of the term full-stop, would be Robert Fisk. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I have no article editing history with articles of this type that I am aware of.) I agree with the 3rd opinion above. User:dmyersturnbull seems to have shown that consensus supports explicit attribution of the contentious label. BigK HeX (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the third and fourth opinions. IronDuke, perhaps you can agree to this? dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Burgess, Mark. "Defining the Indefinable?".

[1] Burgess, Mark. "Defining the Indefinable?".

[1]