Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

Archives
April 2002 – October 2005 November 2005 – May 2006 May 2006 – December 2007 January 2008 – June 2008 July 2008 – May 2009 May 2009 -

However

I'm unconvinced that however implies preference.

"Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others think he is a freedom fighter."

This seems to me to state that some people believe A and others believe B. Using however here doesn't, to me, seem to give any more weight to position B than position A. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. However, the (somewhat misnamed) guideline "Words to avoid" aims to draw attention to situations in which the choice of words may (perhaps inadvertently) favour a particular viewpoint. It is meant to be a source of advice, not a list of proscribed words. Geometry guy 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the goal is to raise awareness that the use of words can introduce bias, not that specific words must be avoided. "However" is misused when it suggests a juxtaposed view where none of equal weight (or substantial if minor weight, at least) exists. —mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, that isn't what the guideline says at the moment. The guideline says "however" implies preference. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way this guideline will improve is if editors like yourself watchlist it, contribute to it, and steer it in the right direction. It is on my watchlist and I will do whatever I can to help. Geometry guy 23:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

Use of the word "terrorist" is usually frowned upon in articles, yet it seems to have a life of its own in category titles. Is there a reason for this? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because is a word that is necesary to describe reality and in the articles can be avoided by semantic contorsions while in categories there is no way to substitute with long euphemisms. The avoidance in the use of the word "terrorism" is one of the shames of the en-wikipedia that reflects the corrosive power of the PC. Once more I want to state that terrorism is a disctinct phenomena and that to call it in bizarre ways is confortable for editors -because they avoid discussions with fanatics- but is unconfortable for the truth and unfair with the victims.--Igor21 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And how would you go around defining terrorism then? I see you edit a lot about al-qaeda attacks, probably emotionally because your country was hit by an al-qaeda attack. But are insurgents fighting for independence terrorists? Were, let's say, my ancestors of the Dutch Republic terrorists when they fought Spain for 80 years? I'm sure the Spanish kings thought of it that way, but modern history doesn't. You edit articles related to attacks by Al-Qaeda. Nobody jests the use of the term terrorist much, since nobody likes Al-Qaeda. But for the hundreds of other conflicts ongoing in the world today, or in the recent past it's much harder to define who are terrorists and who aren't. That's why an encyclopedia should refrain from using such terms, because terrorist equals "enemy". Neutral articles don't ever call people enemies by definition, not even World War II articles. 85.147.37.120 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there particular category titles, or applications of those titles which you're concerned about within the subcategories of {Category:Terrorism}? Шизомби (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the trouble is that the word terrorism is very often used loosely with the meaning "illegitimate (or not legally authorized) political acts of violence". That cloude the issue of the supposed reason a certain act was committed, and the point that with some of what's done by an army or a guerrilla movement you sympathize with, it would, by that definition, be called terrorism as soon as one disapproves of its agents.

Like, when Palestinian outfits fire rockets from Gaza it's called "terrorism" even if the ability to hit a target is low, but when Israel replies by an air strike killing hundreds of civilians it's seen as proper military operations, hence nowhere near terrorism. The difference, apart from which side you sympathize with, is that many people simply don't think the Palestinian groups (most of them looser than a proper army brigade of course) are legitimate, so they refuse to recognize these are fighting with the means they have.Strausszek (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Category titles are navigational devices for allowing readers interested in a subject to find other articles they should read. They are not always claims that someone is or is not a terrorist. For example, if an organization is suspected of being involved in a terrorist plot in India, but later exonerated, then subject to BLP concerns it might make sense to apply the a category like "Terrorism in India" to the group's Wikipedia article, but not a category like "Terrorist Groups". A professor who studies terrorism, anti-terrorism groups, books about terrorism, etc., may all be put in the category. The problem isn't with acknowledging that terrorism is real and a valid subject, it really only happens when we're making the tough decisions on whether to call someone or something a terrorist. Does that make sense? I think there are similar problems with calling people criminals because they have committed a crime. That doesn't stop us from using crime categories. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The banning of the word "terrorism" is ridiculous and is based in the ignorance of academic research on the subject. E.g Strausszek above gives a full lesson of confusion : an army can commit crimes of war but cannot commit terrorism that is reserved by definition to non-governemental entities. However, he is correct that the definition of terrorism (stolen to the wikipedia readers) does not include nothing about legitimacy. Terrorism is a tactic very easy to define and I hope that one day, the serious people will gather momentum enough to finish with this ludicrous ban and the mindless definition that is written in the article as part of the terrorism denying.--Igor21 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor21 there is no ban on the use of the word terrorist but there is a ban on non neutral point of views. What WTA says is "These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article." which is in line with WP:ASF "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

If an army is not at war then how can it commit war crimes? If it is at war then the "terrorists" are belligerents and would be subject to the same laws of war as the "army" and so presumably, by your logic, are no more capable of committing terrorism than an army? If an army is not at war then what does one call the members of a unit that uses terror to subdue opponents? When you go down that route how does one categories the sides in the Rhodesian and South African Bush Wars during the 1970s and 1980s? The South Africans clearly though they were fighting terrorists, and the SWAPO and the ANC thought they were fighting an illegal regime (see the article crime against humanity) and that they fighting under the Geneva Conventions where "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting ... against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination," GC Protocol I general provision (Art 1.4). There are often shades of grey and political opinion involved in deciding who is or is not a terrorist which is why in Wikipedia articles it is desirable that "the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation." -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that attempting to dump "terrorist" and "terrorism" from wikipedia is self defeating. Can it be abused? Yes. Is its definition contested? Yes. But you know what? Wikipedia has an article on "Terrorist." There is a huge body of literature on the topic. Throwing out the word terrorist is absurd. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a hub of information, shouldn't we be using the correct technical terms and fight these battles on a case-by-case basis (both for adding and removing the label of terrorist)? People seem to be fundamentally confused about some things:

Terrorism vs Terror Tactic/Acts of Terror

• Terrorism - An act performed by a non-governmental entity, intended to spread terror in a particular population.
• Terror Tactic - Any strategy whose primary intent is to spread terror, rather than achieve logistical ends.

A government can use terror tactics, and plenty do. A government can also sponsor terrorism. But by definition terrorism must be conducted by an organization outside of the government. There is a major difference in accountability and scope. A government by definition has territories, physical and sovereign land mass. Because terrorism is non-governmental, it is frequently multi-national and you cannot interact with it as you would a government entity due to sovereignty issues. I don't understand how this is such an unclear concept to so many people, but clearly it is. There should only be confusion on this point in the case where a unified state effectively exists, in absence of other government, but is for some reason not recognized (such as if the Kurdish Autonomous Region started performing terror tactics). This is the modern definition, as Terrorism's core usage (and literature) has not included State Terrorism for decades.

Differences of Terror Tactics/Acts of Terror from Other Violence

1. The target of the violence is primarily symbolic, rather than logistic. The physical destruction caused is not the main goal.
2. Terror tactics must be part of an organized pattern (strategy) of violence.
3. A primary goal of this strategy must be instilling fear in a targeted populace.
4. This strategy of fear may be intended to achieve some goals.
5. The targets of violence are not able to reduce their individual probability of being affected (indiscriminate).

The first criteria is a summation of what most of the definitions in the wiki article say. Basically, with terror tactics- you don't win by destroying your enemy's force, it's money, or anything tangible. Your goal is a psychological impact. The 2nd piece just excludes random acts of violence. The third is a given, I would think. The fourth piece means that terror does not have to be your only goal, but if it is not then it is your primary means-to-an-end. In fact, some authors contend that the most terroristic actions would be ones with no stated motive or goals. The last criteria is important, but not limited to acts of terror. It basically means that targets are chosen with deliberate randomness, as this achieves maximum fear (since anyone could be the next target). The less random your targets are, the less terroristic the action. The first 3 are pretty much hard and fast, and are implicit in just about every definition. The final two may be considered matters of degree. But if an strategy is in that spectrum, I would be hard pressed to not call it a terror tactic. However, as stated, it can only be terrorism if they are a separate entity from the government.

Also note, that while I don't have the citation for these points- it does have a scholarly source. It is also is consistent with the scholarly blurbs for Bockstette, Novotny, Gibbs, and the majority of other cited authors there (with the exception of Bassiouni, who apparently has not picked up a journal lately?). Terrorism is not some unclear fuzzy thing. It is just something that most people are poorly educated on. I don't think that is a good reason for avoiding using it. Hopefully by splitting this into two debates we can make this easier. People seem to be fighting a two front battle on "Who can do terrorism?" and "What is terrorism?" and it seems pointless when there are already workable, well studied definitions out there. Benjamid (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I still can't find the paper with the original source but one from Schmid will work just as well: "Terrorism is a method of combat in which random or symbolic victims become targets of violence. Through the repeated use of violence or the credible threat of violence, members of another group are put in a state of chronic fear (terror). The victimization of the target is considered extranormal by most observers...which in turn creates an audience beyond the target of terror.... The purpose of terrorism is either to immobilize the target of terror in order to produce disorientation and/or compliance, or to mobilize secondary targets of demand or targets of attention (Schmid 1983)" If I run across the source I am thinking of in my papers, I'll post it. Benjamid (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjamid: Were the organisations that made up the French resistance terrorist organisations?

• File:IRA Bishopsgate.JPG Destruction caused by the IRA Bishopsgate truck-bomb. Not a terrorist bombing? "1. The target of the violence is primarily symbolic, rather than logistic. The physical destruction caused is not the main goal." Benjamid.

Towards the end of the long war the IRA bombed the City of London to cause such economic harm to the British economy that it would have a two fold effect. The first was that the cost of such attacks would affect the British economy, and second that insurance companies would invoke the war clause forcing the British government to pay compensation on the main land for the first time and in doing so recognise publicly that they were in a state of armed conflict with he IRA (not a policing operation against criminals -- the political position held after the ending of internment). Most British people thought that the 1992 Baltic Exchange bombing (that one bomb cost more than 10,000 previous bombings in Belfast) and the 1993 Bishopsgate bombing were terrorist attacks, but according to your definition (1) and (3) they were not. This is why we do not claim in the passive narrative voice that the bombing was or was not a terrorist attack but instead attribute it to reliable sources.

Your point "5. The targets of violence are not able to reduce their individual probability of being affected (indiscriminate)." would rule many many of the attacks on many people who were targeted. For example the Brighton hotel bombing, and the assassinations of Airey Neave (Don't be active in the Conservative party) and the Milltown Cemetery attack (Don't go to IRA funerals). Yet may reliable sources consider all those attacks to be terrorist attacks. Which is why we have this section in this guideline. -- PBS (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Philip Baird Shearer: If the intent of the bombing was to only cause legitimate economic damage or destroy infrastructure, it's not a terrorist action. In fact, there's already a word for that and it's called sabotage. People who commit sabotage also already have a name: saboteurs. The fact that most British citizens view it as a terrorist action does not change that. I can in fact understand why there might be confusion, since the IRA did commit terrorist actions and thus one would be correct in saying that some or all of the bombers were terrorists. They just didn't happen to be committing terrorism with that particular crime. You could also argue it was terrorism because it was an attack that (maybe) was part of a campaign of terror acts at the time (though that's pretty tenuous). Or you could argue that by destroying property, it was intended to cause a financial terror (where people are worried about their financial safety rather than their physical safety). I would tend to err on the side of caution and not label that as a terror attack. I am not quite sure what your point is though. I wouldn't either way state "this was not a terror attack." I would not expect any article to tell me what is "not terrorism" anymore than I expect every biography to tell me if someone is "not a basketball player." What I am saying is that while a conservative usage should be applied, there are certain actions that most certainly fall under the category of terrorism. While great care should be taken to avoid over-application of the label, I don't see why that means we should jump through hoops to specifically avoid using it even when it is clearly the case.

Additionally, on point 5 I already noted that there is a matter of degree involved. The whole point of a terror tactic when attacking a population is the balance between how many people feel their safety is in jeopardy versus how much more likely a person is to actually be targeted. If I say "I will go through the Boston phone book and kill each John Smith, in order" then only one person is will feel unsafe and one person will have less safety. If instead, I declare "I will kill one person listed in the Boston phone book, randomly" then that affects more people and causes more fear. Saying you will kill someone who is an active conservative is terribly vague and means one of two things. If your plan is to actually eradicate all conservatives by killing them all, your strategy is policide- killing of your opposition. If your plan is to kill some to scare the others, it's terrorism. Since both the term 'active' and 'conservative' are not well defined, I could see that as being a terror tactic. Again, I would say that it makes sense to take a conservative stance in applying the label of terrorism (i.e. maybe we don't count something even that vague as being a terror tactic.

But there are definitely clearly defined incidents of terrorism. I think it is relatively clear that the Sept 11 attacks were committed with the intent to spread fear in the US (and perhaps beyond). Al-Qaeda didn't take credit for the attacks and pat themselves on the back for depleting Manhattan of businessmen and prime commercial real estate. They said directly that it was attack against America and a reprisal for US actions in the Middle East. Bin Laden issued a Fatwa indicating that Americans and Jews should be killed everywhere. If he had credible means to actually achieve this, I suppose you could call it intent to genocide- but I think it is pretty clear that the intended result is to hurt political will through terror actions. That seems like a pretty cut and dry terror attack to me, and since it was not a government and is part of a larger pattern of attacks- that indicates its a terroristic action. There is important information in that statement that is hard to succinctly express otherwise. It's like if we banned the use of the word torture, and were forced to always describe the specific injuries that had occurred. Saying "The government put screws in his thumbs" is vague. Sure, it might be torture but it could also be a medical procedure. It might also be an experiment. Saying "The government tortured him by putting screws in his thumbs" is unambiguous. It states, succinctly, that the intent was to cause pain. Similarly, terrorism states succinctly that the intent of the action was to spread fear. In the same way that torture is a specific type of pain, terrorism is a specific type of violence. If we're no longer going to refer to terrorism, does that mean we also need to no longer refer to torture? Do we say: "Pinochet's government subjected 29,000 to severe pain" as opposed to those 29,000 being tortured? I think it is similarly silly to speak about the Munich Massacre without reference to terrorism. By avoiding saying that, the motivations and strategic value of the incident is obscured for no apparent reason. And what is the benefit? We don't have to make hard choices in whether or not to use the word sometimes? Seems like a cop-out to me. If I am reading an article about a bombing that fits these criteria, I want to see it described as terrorism. I don't want to have to read through the whole article and 10 surrounding articles to get the motivations of the people involved, in order to figure out if money, ideology, or unconventional warfare tactics were the reason Benjamid (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Attacks against the Conservative party was because of their political opinion not an attempt by the IRA to commit genocide. The point is that it was targeted and by not being an active member of the Conservative party one reduced the chances of being a target. As it was targeted your definition makes that not terrorism. It is because people hold different views on what is or is not terrorism and the way it is used as a political polemic that we have this section. I put in a Google search for [Brighton bombing terrorist attack]. If we did not have this prohibition I could simply write "The 12 October 1984 Brighton bombing was an IRA terrorist attack.[1]" using the first source returned by Google. Or one could write it as "The Belfast Telegraph stated in an article written in October 2009 that "The Brighton bombing was the most audacious terrorist attack in the history of the IRA."[2]" Given your self defined restrictions on what is or is not a terrorist attack which handles the facts better? It is because terrorism is often a matter of opinion we have the restrictions that we do and even when many editors think there is a clear cut case of terrorism, using the same formula creates better articles. BTW This article by the BBC is far more enlightening than the Belfast Telegraph which I used as a source. It was returned as the third article returned by the Google search -- one after Wikipedia's Brighton hotel bombing which does not assert that it was a terrorist attack. -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the definition of Benjamid. It is the one I keep sourcing with Hoffman and Schmidt except the point 5 that is correct but allows some word games like saying that bombing the Conservative convention was not terrorism "because the members of the party would have been able to resign".

There are two sets of problems with the definition of terrorism. One is what we can call the trivial set that is to diferenciate from others kinds of political violence. But then there is also a scientific problem that is that if the definition implies the state of mind of the terrorist, it becomes imposible to ascertain since this state of mind is unknown for the observer. My point is that we do not need to deal with this second set since the sources (Hoffman and Schmidt, not the Daily Telegraph, the BBC or the USA Today) do the work for us.

Philip normally uses the IRA for the problematic cases that he produces to shell the definitions of the sources. IRA it is problematic because was the group practising terrorims who dedicate more effort to appear as the army of a nation.

However most of the actions against the british were terrorism since were "to send messages using violence". As I always said, the word terrorism must be asigned to each incident and only in extreme cases (RAF, BR, etc...) must be given to the organization.

Anyway, I think this ban must finish and we must call things by its name.--Igor21 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: PBS You seem to be having a reading comprehension issue about what I have said and not said. I specifically stated that the level of targeting is a continuum. Your point does not make any sense in that light. Firstly, while the IRA stated that they would kill all Conservative members- that was not a credible threat. Nor was it their goal anyways. Actually attempting to do so probably would have been suicide for them, literally and figuratively (see: Shining Path). Had they been actually attempting this, it would be policide (as I have already stated). As such, it is potentially terrorism. But again, it might not be. If they're attacking the leadership, you could easily see that as just being a way to get some terror impact out of what is primarily assassination. The fact that there are unclear situations does not indicate to me that we shouldn't use correct terminology in all instances, even when it clearly applies. Benjamid (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I do agree that while assigning the label of terrorism to actions is certainly suitable (and by association, those committing those actions as terrorists)- I definitely think that great care should be taken in labeling any group or association as terrorist, especially one with a distributed leadership structure. At this point, Hammas could easily be considered a political, terrorist, or humanitarian organization. They have branches that have participated in each of those activities. While I am fine with saying that committing one act of terrorism makes a person a terrorist (in the same way one murder makes a person a killer), that logic does not extend to organizations. Giving one loan doesn't make make a business a bank. Unless an organization regularly uses terrorism as one of its primary activities (or openly states it intends to), I would never want to apply that label. This is especially a major issue since organizations exist over potentially long periods of time. What might have once been a terrorist organization may no longer engage in those activities. But I am fine stating that an organization has participated in terrorism in a particular incident. Or has sponsored terrorism (again in a particular incident). Benjamid (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Surly the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986, was "to send messages using violence", and most other retaliatory air raids are done for the same reason. The IRA always "claimed responsibility" and gave justifications for their bombings, even if they seemed weak to an impartial observer -- and nauseating to their victims -- see for example the Enniskillen Remembrance Day Bombing. Your opinions on whether the IRA was not a terrorist organisation or if the RAF was, is just that your opinion, and not justification for editorialising in articles. Instead it is better that "If a reliable source describes a person or group [as terrorist], then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation" (WP:TERRORIST).

Your arguments remind me of those who wish the word "hacker" had not gained the meaning "cracker" in the media, you can argue all you like that it has a precise meaning and that any other use is not correct but it ain't like that in the real world of reliable sources. Take this CNN report for example

CHRIS PLANTE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The U.S. military has had all too much experience with deadly terrorist attacks; 1983, a truck bomb in Beirut killed 241 Marines; 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killed five Americans; 1996, 19 U.S. airmen killed in another truck bomb attack at a complex in Saudi Arabia; and in 2000, 17 sailors killed in a suicide attack against the USS Cole in Yemen.

If attacks on a military are not terrorist attacks (because do not target "innocent civilians"), then the U.S. military does not have much experience with deadly terrorist attacks and Chris plante is wrong in his opinion. But we do not make such editorial judgements instead we employ a simple formula "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves": "On 22 August 2003 Chris Plante, the CCN's Pentagon correspondent, stated that the US military had a lot of experience in dealing with terrorist attacks which made them a harder target to attack than in the past." Using this formula we do not need to judge if he is correct (in his usage of the term terrorism) or not, and as the term is full of political nuances, with no clear definition, it allows us to report the facts without making judgements about the use of the word. -- PBS (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip : You are the one who editorializes by denying evidence again and again with you quizes and quotes from newpapers and TV channels. Now you go even further coming out with "hacker" just to beat around the bush to avoid reality. Please, stop doing original research analizing cases and tell us why the opinion of academic sources must be less relevant that your guesses, opinions and doubts.--Igor21 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip : Firstly, are you really citing CNN as a reliable source on defining who is a terrorist? A beat writer banging out an article on a deadline is not an authority on terrorism. Nor is an army official, unless they are a noted authority on the matter. A guy like Scott Atran is an authority on terrorism. Regardless of my gut instinct, if someone like that says that someone is a terrorist- I am inclined to believe him. On the other hand, I am rather disinclined to believe Joseph Stalin's assessment of terrorists at this point in history. Which, by the way, was published as news at the time and was assigned by a high level official. An authority on terrorism needs to be someone who well versed on the subject in general, has a good understanding of the particular group in question, and has no obvious POV conflict to label them as a terrorist for their own benefit. The US government violates that last assumption. If you have guys you don't like, and you're in a "War on Terror" it is safe to assume you want to label people as terrorists. They are in fact saboteurs or insurgents, or maybe even asymmetric forces if you want to term them as that. If you attack a military complex with a bomb, that is a surprise attack- not a terror attack. Who's terrorized? The soldiers? Maybe, but I think it is assumed as normative that if you are in the army and deployed that someone might try to blow you up. If people want to quote the US Army/CIA official view on these things (etc.), that's fine too as long as they're attributed as one would an opinion, but we are talking about using definitive labeling terminology. I would think that reliable sources on this would be academic specialists, reputable cross-national NGO's, UN assessments, and things that that nature. Benjamid (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I should state however that in certain government reports, but not necessarily press releases, the term "terrorist attack" may in fact mean an attack by a group that is considered a terrorist organization- differentiating them from a militia or insurgents, etc. In any event, I would avoid citing such a thing at all unless it indicated if they were trying to state that it was an attack by a terrorist group or if it was an act of terrorism. Benjamid (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Your arguments remind me of those who wish the word "hacker" had not gained the meaning "cracker" in the media" - Additionally, on a side note there was no way that the term 'cracker' was ever going to get a mainstream foothold in the media in the 70's. Unless you're Richard Pryor, I don't think you're allowed to go on TV and say that 'crackers' infiltrated your computer. This is a totally different discussion. There were two separate and obscure terms. They got mainstreamed into one term because there was so much overlap in meaning. There is no alternative word for terrorists or terrorism. It is a specific term that just happens to be overused because it's a convenient way to say that you think someone does very bad things. The media uses it to mean "Any non-governmental group of people who kill/threaten people using surprise/unprovoked attacks" which happens to be horribly vague. Vague enough to put almost any military commander in that set. I don't see that as a valid excuse to stop using it. It just means you need to actually use it where it applies. Which involves using reliable sources. Not reliable sources about EVENTS but reliable sources about TERRORISM. Which, no offense to CNN, happen to be vastly different specializations. Benjamid (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Too many comments in this thread are addressing the editor, with things like "[Y]ou are the one who editorializes by denying evidence again and again," popping up from time to time. Please assume good faith. Please focus on the subject, not the editor. Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia for all people, so use of a label like "terrorist" is extremely problematic. It must be used very sparingly, and never in "Wikipedia's voice". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"It must be used very sparingly, and never in "Wikipedia's voice"." That is exactly the point we're debating right now. It's nice that you are adding your opinion, but that's still just an opinion. I would say that it should be used "when appropriate" and "conservatively." I have no trouble with Wikipedia stating that Al Quaeda is a terrorist organization. I don't see any published information stating they do much else (compared to Hammas, for example) To be conservative however, I would prefer to state that Al Quaeda are 'an organization is known for their acts of terrorism.' I think it is an extremely encyclopedic trait to state facts as they are, rather than to engage in some policy of beating around the bush. I just have no idea who that benefits. If a person's only notable activity is engaging in terror attacks, shouldn't they be referred to as a terrorist? That is a concise, effective transmission of information. It is my belief that this practice obscures a reasonable person's understanding of the relevance historical persons and groups. This is encyclopedic for all people. I think it is extremely encyclopedic to call a carpenter a carpenter, an teacher a teacher, a soldier a soldier, and a terrorist a terrorist. People can have plenty of different roles, but if they fit I think they should be noted. What is the counterpoint to this?

I am advocating lifting the ban on the use of the word terrorist and replacing it with a verifiable set of rules about its usage, plus a warning to use the term as conservatively as possible. From what I can see, there is significant support for that viewpoint, so who states that this prohibition is written in stone? Benjamid (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, apologies if anyone has felt that I have approached them as an editor as having had some sort of bad intent. I have been attempting to argue specific points, not the character of anyone involved, which I don't see any issues with. Benjamid (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may just be my opinion that I am expressing, but Wikipedia is governed by the collective opinion of consensus. Referring to Al-Qaeda as a "terrorist organization", or even "an organization known for acts of terrorism", would be inappropriate. You simply cannot use Wikipedia's voice to attach such labels. Attributed statements like "described by the US State Department as a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization'" is about as far as you can go. You must understand that Al-Qaeda is regarded differently by different Wikipedia users, so Wikipedia itself must not use simplistic labels. I live in the United States, and a pretty large chunk of the world's population refer to some US overseas operations as "acts of terrorism". As a British citizen exposed to their atrocities, I regarded the IRA as terrorists, but the organization had no difficulty at all in getting US funding for weapons and their cause enjoyed significant support from many Americans. The point that I am making is that many users of Wikipedia may have a very different view of Al-Qaeda to yours, and the project tries to be as inclusive as possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey is right. As the IRA bombings of Manchester and London are just in my living memory, I'm aware of cultural differences in labelling people as "terrorists" and "freedom fighters"; my father had a negative opinion of the IRA, but his Irish best friend/drinking partner had a positive opinion. This is part of the argument I made when trying to refocus the use of the word "terrorist" on the Osama bin Laden article. There really isn't an objective use of the word "terrorism", even for al-Qaeda: remember, Ronald Reagan (infamously, in hindsight) referred to the Afghan mujahideen as "freedom fighters" because they were fighting the Soviets. Likewise, Nelson Mandela was officially a terrorist according to the Thatcher administration, another point of contention between Thatcher and the Livingstone-led left-wing Greater London Council when Livingstone erected a statue of Mandela on the South Bank of the Thames, opposite Parliament. I know the US is outraged at al-Qaeda for September 11, but we're not all American. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sceptre - The fact that some people have been labeled terrorists incorrectly is irrelevant. Moreover, at the time Reagan could easily have been correct in his assessment that the mujahideen were freedom fighters. In fact, you could even make the argument that Al-Qaeda is fighting for Muslim rights or Muslim privilege. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be a terrorist fighting for freedom. There is no contradiction in that. In fact, it follows very logically when you consider that people are not free specifically because they do not have sufficient direct force to directly overcome their opponent. This isn't about opinion. We have definitions over what is a terror act and clear definitions of who is a terrorist if they commit terror acts, which I have already noted. There most certainly is an objective definition. Saying that Al-Quaeda is not a terrorist organization because at one point in time that was not its primary focus is like saying that Ted Bundy is not a serial killer because when he was a child he didn't kill anyone. Things change over time and organizations participate in many activities. With that said, if you are an NGO committing acts of terror then you are an NGO committing acts of terrorism. There's no two ways about it. If you can state: "they committed those actions with the strategic goal to create fear" according to what was previously stated, it's terrorism. This has nothing to do with being outraged at Al Quaeda. They did what they did, they had reasons for what they did, and it was and remains part of their strategy. From a humanistic standpoint it may be reprehensible, but from a strategic standpoint their attack on the twin towers was extremely successful. If they hadn't blown their cachette of support by their attacks in Indonesia, their level of recruitment would be formidable. And again, I do not see people in the Muslim world disagreeing with the fact that Al-Qaeda does its actions to cause terror in the western world. The disagreement is over whether that terror is a good thing, and the steps to produce it were justified. Wikipedia should certainly take no stance on that. It's not called terrorism because it's a bad thing done by bad people. That's just a particular moral attitude. I'm more than willing to believe that terrorism has been performed by well-intentioned people and sometimes has lead to beneficial outcomes. I mean, statistically over the course of history- that is almost inevitable. It's called terrorism because it's intended to cause terror. That's pretty objective. I don't see how an encyclopedia is responsible for people's opinions about terrorists. An encyclopedia is responsible for recording who has participated in terrorism, if that is notable. Benjamid (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Re: Scjessey, I am well aware that plenty of people refer to Bush and US actions as terrorism. They're clearly incorrect, due to the restriction on terrorism to NGO's but there are certainly reasonable arguments that the US has committed war crimes and may have committed acts of terror. If there was a particular military officer known for instilling fear in the population through acts of terror, I would want that noted as well. I have not heard of that being the case in the current wars, but certainly there are stories of Vietnam officers who committed pretty bad war crimes intended to create fear. This isn't about playing favorites. This is about recording history accurately. I see you are repeatedly referencing popular opinion as being in any way relevant, but it's not. Terrorism is a strategy, like a card counting at poker or a fouling in basketball. Just because many people think it's a dirty trick doesn't mean that we should shy away from stating that someone is a known card counter. This is not about protecting my viewpoints as to who I like or dislike. While I in general am opposed to killing and especially killing of non-combatants (though I may be biased, being a non-combatant), that is a heck of a lot broader than terrorism. I would recommend you check your assumption of bias at the door on this one, as you are assuming bad faith. I am not in this to label Al Qaeda a terrorist group. I simply use them because they're a recognizable slam dunk. They've committed acts of terror in the US, Kenya, and Indonesia. "Terrorism" is not a simplistic label. If you have been reading this thread, I think you should be quite aware of the definition I have noted. I went to great details to present an objective definition upon which a whole field of research is based. Saying that "terrorism" is simplistic is like saying that the word "redardation" is simplistic. Just because it is used improperly doesn't mean it lacks a definition. My issue with this matter is that avoiding the use of the term "terrorism" is an obfuscation of meaning. I am against the concept of avoiding the use of one word for what I consider to be extremely arbitrary reasons. By all the arguments you have presented, torture should also be an "avoided word" as should many others. I feel that if a word has the potential for misuse, there should be a consensus made as to its usage and that these guidelines should be posted so that the word can be used appropriately. I do not think that a word should just be "avoided" when it conveys unique and important meaning. As an academic who has done some work studying terrorism, I am well aware that the term "terrorist" is vastly overapplied but that does not justify making "terrorism" a 3rd rail topic. Benjamid (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This guideline has an unhealthy obsession with just one of the words it discusses. It is fascinating that it bans the use of "terrorist" in the unqualified narrative voice (even in clear cut cases with multiple independent sources supporting the usage), but has nothing whatsoever to say about "torture". Yet, every time terrorism is mentioned on this talk page we get pages of discussion about the IRA, the US government, and borderline cases. How sad.

So lets focus on a less emotive word: "skyscraper". This is currently not among the words to avoid. But is there an objective definition of "skyscraper"? How tall is tall? Should we not say "According to the United Arab Emirates government, Burj Khalifa is a skyscraper in Dubai.[1]" instead of "Burj Khalifa is a skyscraper in Dubai.[1][2][3]"? After all, this could be United Arab Emirates propaganda. If there is no objective definition that covers all cases, then shouldn't we discuss changing this style guideline? Geometry guy 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. No one will get seriously offended if they see their favourite building described as a skyscraper or not. However, people will be offended if they see a national/regional hero seen as terrorist. And frankly, I have a problem with the "multiple independent sources" thing; it leads too often to cherry picking the sources you want to prove your point. If you need more than three or four sources to prove a fact, odds are it really isn't a fact. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored: we do not edit our articles according to what people might find offensive. Anyway, yet again the point is being missed... Geometry guy 22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with censorship. It's got everything to do with proper encyclopedic judgement; I don't think it's proper encyclopedic judgement to marginalise millions of people because of our systemic Anglosphere bias: amusingly, Bin Laden had a better approval in Pakistan five years ago than Dubya had in the USA. And re: your Skyscraper point: as the article says, it depends on the region. Bridgewater Place, to a Yorkshire resident, may be a skyscraper to us (as it's the tallest building in the North East) but to a London resident, it's dwarfed by developments like the Cheesegrater, the Gherkin, the Shard, etc... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are getting close to the point, but are still not quite there: keep thinking. The intentions of all editors here are good, but unfortunately, there is no original research on Wikipedia. We cannot rewrite what the sources have to say in order to impose our editorial perceptions of what might cause offense elsewhere. It is, quite frankly, irresponsible and patronizing. (But that still wasn't the point :) Geometry guy 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it works both ways. Category:Terrorists got deleted for OR reasons: we were imposing one definition on a bunch of people who were not sourced to fit under the definition. To be honest, "terrorist" has too wide meanings—from the vernacular "anyone who's a Muslim" and "anyone we don't like" to the technical scholarly definitions, some of which seem to be deliberately manufactured to exclude the US' worst atrocities—to be used without clarification. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And "skyscraper" does not have too wide meanings to be used without clarification? (That's a clue.) Anyway, I agree with you that applying editorial labels is something to discourage, and is one of the main themes of this guideline. Geometry guy 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's words to avoid, not words never to use. The guideline calls our attention to this word as often being problematic. As with other words on the list, it goes beyond a sourcing problem to one of encyclopedic tone and objectivity. We can find multiple independent sources that the weather in upstate New York is "frigid", that the Eiffel Tower is "astonishing", that coming of age is "awkward", or that Frank Sinatra was a "crooner". However, for the most part we avoid such terms because they voice opinion, are not well defined, and do not add anything beyond what a more objective word would other than a non-neutral narrative voice. Saying that Hamas is a terrorist organization does not add anything to the statement that Hamas was designated a terrorist organization by X, Y, and Z, other than an endorsement. The issue is fraught with politics. To chose a couple cases on the borderline, how come an American who steals dogs from a pet shop because they think the dogs are mistreated is a terrorist, yet one who pilots an airplane into an office building to kill government employees is not? The politics of the time are indeed an encyclopedic subject, and Wikipedia can and should cover just why that is. However, it should not take sides on the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your rhetorical question: because the perpetrator wasn't Muslim. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon : What you say is nonsense. I have thoroughly debunked this absurd mith in the talk page of "Definition of terrorism".

To say that a terrorist incident is a terrorist incident adds a lot because defines the methods of the perpetrators, gives a good guess about the structure of its organization, informs to people that such organization is using terrorist tactics, etc... .

Of course to use the word wrongly adds nothing ot wikipedia as use wrongly any word. It must be said that to no use a word can be easily qualified of using wrongly so all these people who come here to say that "the word must not be used because I do not like my friends to be insulted" should be impeded of doing so.

This "Words to avoid" page is a fake policy in which bad faith of some, is backed up by ignorance of most to cause a big harm to Wikipedia.--Igor21 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree with you. First of all, WP:WTA is a guideline, not a policy. That means that on any given article, editors may reach a consensus to override this guideline. That being said, I can see no reasonable excuse for Wikipedia to label individuals or organizations with volatile, controversial terms like "terrorist". It is clear which of the following is preferable:

• Mr. Angry Man is a terrorist.^[1]
• Mr. Angry Man has been described as a "terrorist" by the Federal States Department of Security.^[1]

The former example uses Wikipedia's voice to label the individual, potentially alienating many Wikipedia users who may view the individual completely differently ("freedom fighter", "holy warrior", etc.) and also conceivably exposes Wikipedia to legal difficulties. The latter gives attribution to the organization responsible for applying the label, immunizes Wikipedia from legal consequences, and maintains a neutrality that appeals to the community without "diluting" the meaning or intent of the label. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Sir. Rumiton (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey : With the same respect, what you say is non-sense and can be applied to any given term. To propose only for "terrorism" is due to the utter ignorance about the subject that most Wikipedia editors show without any shame. Please read books about the subject and then we can continue the discussion.--Igor21 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not any given term - just the words to avoid, plus a few others that aren't explicitly covered but should be obvious with the employment of a little common sense. I apologize for shamefully failing to read enough books to address my "utter ignorance", but I thank you for showing me "the same respect". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Igor21, you're not going to convince anyone by berating them and accusing them of bad faith. It actually looks quite foolish to announce that people who don't share your opinion are ignorant and their opinions nonsense, particularly when what you're railing against reflects Wikipedia's consensus on the subject. You're arguing a simple logical fallacy, that because other words are capable of ambiguity or multiple definitions, we shouldn't discourage this word for being inherently ambiguous. Anyway, I don't see any reason to change the guideline at this time, nor do I see much point continuing this discussion if that means tolerating further incivility. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Very Tall Building in Chicago is a skyscraper.^[1][2][3]
• The Very Tall Building in Chicago has been described as a "skyscraper" by Chigago Architects' Weekly magazine.^[1]

Not yet got it? Keep thinking :-) Geometry guy 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The word terrorist and the word skyscraper are sufficiently different in meaning and usage that a close comparison isn't that fruitful. Both of these lack generally-accepted criteria for inclusion, which is about as far as the comparison goes. In the case of terrorist, a lot more is riding on the distinction than a simple matter of definition. Perhaps if by calling something a skyscraper one were implying that it is illegal, morally reprehensible, and worthy of destruction by any means at our disposal, if various countries were accusing each other of building skyscrapers, and if politicians and law enforcement groups kept trying to expand the definition to include new classes of buildings to rally support for their programs, and accused each other of palling around with skyscrapers in attempts to discredit their political opponents, we would discourage calling things that too. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikidemon. 'calling something a skyscraper one were implying that it is illegal, morally reprehensible, and worthy of destruction by any means at our disposal.' Firstly, not everyone believes that terrorists should be eradicated. They may not like the label, but if you gave them a survey about the criteria- there are plenty of people who would advocate it under various circumstances. Generalized fear is a tool, and it has been quite popular long before Machiavelli endorsed it. Secondly, I think that's rather irrelevant that some people have strong opinions about people who are terrorists. People have strong opinions about people who perform abortions, but we don't beat around the bush on that. If someone is notable for the abortions they performed, I want that in the first few sentences, i.e. "Gunn was the first of four abortion doctors killed by anti-abortionists" (David Gunn). And by and large, that is what we get. We don't get some roundabout thing that says "Dr. X was reported by Y Organization for performing abortions on a regular basis." or "Dr. X is associated with Planned Parenthood, which has been called an organization that supports abortions." Yes, some people may find it offensive that their favorite doctor is known for giving abortions- but if that is the source of his notability, there is no sense in avoiding it. I'm sure Dr. Gunn did many other things in his practice, but that was the one he was known for and killed over. Likewise, if someone's notability is solely for their activities of a terrorist it should be noted as such. The current policy of "avoid this word" makes articles less clear. Moreover, when people DO use the word there are no guidelines for its usage. I am advocating removing the blanket "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on the word and replace it with an actual definition built by consensus. And I would advocate making sure that the consensus definition is pretty restrictive. All told, this would probably lead to a very small number of legitimate uses of the word but when it is used it would convey a great deal of information. Benjamid (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can judge abortion is a neutral term which describes the action. Although I can source it, I doubt if the consensus would be to write in the passive narrative voice of the article that "Gunn was the first of four baby killing doctors killed by pro-lifers". There are dozens of sources that indicate that terrorist carries prerogative connotations and as such is a judgemental word. I was looking through the article 2004 Madrid train bombings it is riddled with the use of the word terrorist including this one more than once 11 September terrorist attack which is piped to September 11 attacks. Why the need to include the word terrorist in the name are there other well known September 11 attacks for which the term needs disambiguating? If it is not needed for disambiguation then it is there to make a point, I think "The lady doth protest too much". -- PBS (talk)

The only reason that the word terrorist needs no disambiguation is that for these events, you and I have a reasonable understanding of what has occurred and the general intention of the action. I am not here to quibble about specific usages, I am stating that the guideline as it stands provides very little "guidance." Imagine someone with very little information about a particular issue who happens across an article of a terror attack. Now imagine that instead of stating such information outright, we end up with articles stating "Well, there was this attack ... (paragraphs pass) This attack was intended to create fear and spread a symbolic message ... (more paragraphs pass) The US Pentagon denounced this action as a terrorist attack." Additionally, the term "baby killer" vs "abortion doctor" definitely is comparing a pejorative vs a standard term. Terrorist is not the pejorative term. It IS the standard term. There is no other term that describes a person that performs an attack caused to incite terror according to this pattern. A better analogy might be "serial killer." There is a particular pattern of behavior into which people can be classified for that label, but there is no other good term for it. It may be upsetting to hear someone called a serial killer, but if their behavior followed that pattern it is an appropriate label. Benjamid (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example:

• George W. Bush is a terrorist.^[1]
• George W. Bush has been described as a "terrorist" by Paul Rosenberg of OpenLeft.^[1] (actual source)

Which one of these is appropriate? Would your answer change if the subject was Nelson Mandela? He was on the US terrorist watch list until 2008 because he led a bombing campaign in the early 1960s - in fact, it was a CIA tip-off that led to his arrest and imprisonment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good. You are making progress, but this is still too emotive to draw easy conclusions. I was about to make a similar comment on my less emotive subject, when my internet connection crashed. Here it is below... Geometry guy 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The analogy is not intended to be a broad one: it is only intended to make one point, but no one has yet quite got it, even though the edit history reveals it. Here's another clue:

• The Quite Tall Building in Chicago is a skyscraper.^[1]
• The Quite Tall Building in Chicago has been described as a "skyscraper" by Chigago Architects' Weekly magazine.^[1]

---

There is a tendancy on wikipedia to write more than to read and think. In terms of broader comments made by Sceptre, Wikidemon and Scjessey, I agree with you. Yet also I don't. How can that be? Geometry guy 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make some sort of point (or score one). Yet you have chosen obfuscation rather than clarification. How can that be? Spit it out, man. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I am not try to score a point or win an argument. I edit wikipedia for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. There is no point in telling other editors what to think. We all have to think for ourselves. Geometry guy 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. I think you need to change your approach to make your own thoughts clearer to others, instead of trying to get them to simply guess what you are on about. Get back to "improving the encyclopedia" and we'll take care of creating our own neural pathways. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjamid expresses his thoughts clearly below. In such cases, what typically happens here, I have found, is that other editors simply reassert their position without giving any indication that they have attempted to engage with the discussion.

You are under no obligation to attempt to understand my comments or reply to them, but others might be interested, so please do not personalize the issue or instruct me on how I might best contribute to the encyclopedia. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You aren't contributing to anything at the moment. You've turned a meaningful discussion about this guideline into a guessing game in which you have the audacity to make comments like "[v]ery good. You are making progress" as if you're our school teacher or something. Now you have compounded the issue with a vague assertion that "other editors" aren't thinking. If you have something meaningful to contribute then for goodness sake contribute it, because this off-topic, vague, rhetorical condescension is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing the guideline

From what I can see, the arguments for supporting the WPA on Terrorism are the following:

1. People are unclear on the meaning of the word "terrorism."
2. Sometimes, people are wrongly or controversially labeled as terrorists.
3. People tend to label people they don't like as terrorists.
4. Using the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" upsets some people.
5. Using the word "terrorism" will alienate some people and cause them to leave.

Am I missing anything here? That seems to be the general points. Here are the counterpoints:

1. I just gave an academic definition into which almost anything labeled as a terrorist would be a terrorist under any other definition I have heard. If there is for some reason a case that it does not sufficiently cover, I am fine with looking at a few extra references to figure out response work on this topic which defines the definition with less ambiguity.
2. By using an events/strategy based definition, we move away from mislabels. Nelson Mandela is not a terrorist because he never ordered killings to instill terror in the population. In the case of uncertainty about the facts, we err on being conservative.
3. By citing a NEW guideline that actually has a definition, we avoid this and avoid having to fight it out as a free-for-all on a per article basis. If people have arguments with the definition, they can come and argue over here. This splits a large number of effectively intractable arguments into arguments here about usage and arguments in other articles about if the subject warrants such usage.
4. Tough. Seriously. If you're upset that Manson or Ted Bundy are labeled serial killers, that is unfortunate. With that said, their pattern of behavior is termed as such and no amount of upset makes this categorization untrue. The same is true of a terrorist. There are specific patterns and strategy to terrorism. Using the correct word for such actions make them no more or less true. They simply present information succinctly.
5. I do not think this is in any way certain. Maybe I don't lurk around enough, but allowing the use of such a label could just as easily lead to an increased interest by parties who support said individuals and seek to add their own edits. I don't think that is bad at all, so long as it is constructive. I would be happy to see additional information about the ideology of terrorists and groups engaging in terrorism. I think it would be useful information for all readers to be presented with beliefs and justifications held by people engaging in terror acts (i.e. Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden). Again, I usually have not seen denial of the actions or the intent to cause fear- but that such actions are justified.

Right now, the current guideline is effectively unclear. It basically says "You can refer to this and get the word terrorism removed because it is against guidelines, but we have no guidelines for when it can be used." That seems like a pretty significant cop-out. If we're supposed to build consensus on things, isn't that one of those things? Instead, we now have an inconsistent definition that lends itself to a popularity contest. Bin Laden is listed as the founder of a terrorist organization because he's unpopular enough to maintain that label. There's no guideline to state why he should get the label but a guy like the Unabomber should not. So what is the point of a guideline that says "Use this less" but with no insight into how it should actually be used? I agree there should be a guideline. What I disagree with is the current state of the guideline. Benjamid (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't label anyone a "terrorist" at all, regardless of their actions. Personally, I think that should be a cast-iron policy instead of just a guideline, because (in the case of living people) using the term surely violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons anyway. The word (and its variants) should be confined to cases where it can be properly attributed. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond further to those points: (1) whether people are clear or not on it, there is no single definition of terrorism. It is not our place as an encyclopedia to create our own local definition or choose among multiple competing definitions from the outside world. With respect to (2), the problem is that sources that qualify as reliable per our general rules of WP:RS differ on calling people terrorist, according to their own customs and politics. We can only use RS, though. Doing our own analysis to see whether a person fits a definition is WP:SYNTH or wP:OR, against policy for good reason. (3) the problem is that the label is often a value judgment or a political statement, not a statement as to the facts. In the United States saboteurs who vandalize construction and logging machinery, animal research labs, abortion clinics, and other things they dislike are called terrorists and are often reported as such in the press - they would not fit the academic definition, but it's a lot easier to mobilize people politically and get funding for law enforcement efforts if the enemy is a terrorist. The point with (4) is not that Wikipedians are upset but that people who are called terrorists often do not wished to be, so we have a WP:BLP problem - you cannot tell me that labeling a college professor like Rashid Khalidi a terrorist[3][4] is good for his reputation. One reason you don't mention is that having a general guideline here against using the term (except to report that a person has been labeled a terrorist by a given official body) does a lot to quell the endless edit wars over the subject in article space. In any given regional political battle, when one side accuses the other of being terrorists you can bet that editors here will have heated editing disputes over how to cover the accusations. It is very useful to be able to point here in order to say that we can add, if reliably sourced, a comment that someone was put on an official list of terrorists, but that we cannot engage in the kind of fresh analysis proposed above to make our own decision on whether or not to call someone a terrorist. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that while there may not be one single agreed definition of terrorism, there are a number of well defined ones and I would not call it original research to take the most constraining definition. That is, the intersection of commonly used definitions. It is not original research. It is not drawing a conclusion beyond the published sources. I support the guideline continue to insist on multiple sourcing. In fact, I can think of probably a dozen more terms that merit multiple-sourcing. I am stating that either there are some guidelines as to the nature of what is a "reliable source" for defining a terrorist or that there is an additional set of specific restrictions on the usage of the term rather than just a blanket discouragement. I can see the issue of WP:BLP, however. I could see the utility of avoiding stating that someone was involved in "terrorism" until their death. It is likely more likely to be able to get unbiased sources long after the fact anyways. Additionally, for living people there is a greater likelihood of misinformation problems compounded by biased and unreliable "reliable sources."

The primary issue that I can see is that there is a claim in the guidelines that the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" is "inherently non-neutral." My general feeling is that the first paragraph of the guideline is misleading and states a guideline based itself upon an opinion of the meanings of these words. There is no reason to state that "terrorist" is a pejorative any more than "serial killer" is. I think I would rather be called a terrorist than a serial killer, at the very least. The assumption that the term "terrorist" is inherently non-neutral actually makes quite a big claim. The article on terrorism doesn't state "this value always is non-neutral" so why would the guideline? Additionally, the guideline itself provides zero guidance into any recommendations about actual usage- instead saying "fight it out on a case by case basis." Again, this essentially degenerates into a popularity contest in my opinion. It does little to improve consistency of usage when it is used. Benjamid (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"The article on terrorism doesn't state "this value always is non-neutral"" see: Terrorism#Pejorative use -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See the article definitions of terrorism. There is a lot of literature that says that it is in its modern usage pejorative. Unlike serial killer, definitions of terrorism usually includes a political dimension, and that coupled to its pejorative usage means that it frequently used as a polemic. Let me give you an example in the article Regicide. In the article there is a list of acts of regicide, See this edit by user:TodorBozhinov on 11 February 2010, followed one edit later by this one by 84.20.248.154. So using this guideline I've replaced it with this. Which of the three has the most neutral point of view? -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This guideline is OR since the academic scholars agree on a definition. PBS is emotionally involved and wants to avoid the incidents of a certain organization to be qualified as terrorism. This is the truth of all this and in the talk page of Defintion of terrorism you can find the whole story.

Many terms include a political dimension and this does not mean that do not have definition. All the terms have diferent wordings for the same definition. PBS use minor diferences in wording and misquoting of authors to support his OR and to hide the sources.

At some point someone should finish with this shame of wikipedia using euphemisms because some people do not like a certain word that is used in universities and academic simposia with all normality. --Igor21 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First person and second person pronouns

I think we should add first person and second person pronouns to the list of words to avoid. Would it be appropriate to mention them in the "words that editorialize" section, or would it be more appropriate to cover them elsewhere? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've added them to the end of the "words that editorialize" section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Softening of points of view

Sometimes words such as claim, alleged etc are not just not to be avoided but are actually very useful in describing opposing points of view. If NPOV is to be maintained you cant say definitively that either side is correct, and to say both are correct makes the article completely schizophrenic. These words can be useful because they qualify the opposing versions of the truth. I'm going to have to think up a way to say this on the page... Mdw0 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but be careful not to encourage weasel words. Gigs (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the guideline's claim section, it clearly states that ""Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit.", then provides some examples of acceptable use. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Myth and Legend

Because of the dual use of "myth" with "false belief," it may be appropriate to avoid the term when dealing with living religions. While on a scholastic level all belief systems are "myth" (and let's not fool ourselves, we also mean "not objectively true"), that's not the case for the vast majority of the planet, who have some adherence to a living religion. There are more neutral terms.EGMichaels (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Wording Change

The current wording of the Myth and Legend section needs to be clarified to state more clearly what is implied: (changes in bold)

Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths were, at some time in the past, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a currently held belief in a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to currently held "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context demonstrates an informal use, while "Hindu beliefs" and "Greek myths" does not.

The difference between the formal and informal sense of "myth" has less to do with veracity (neither are literally true) than it does with currency (a formal "myth" was believed at some time in the past but not now, while informally a "myth" is something currently believed but false). One can refer to "Greek myths and Christian beliefs" in the same context but not "Hindu beliefs and Christian myths" in the same context. There are no living religions upholding ancient Greek beliefs, but Christianity and Hinduism are living religions.

This is implied in the original wording under the formal meaning when it says the story is "or forgotten or vague origin" (that is something so far in the past that we have no direct records) and "at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth" (the societies are not currently believing the myth, but used -- past tense -- the myth).

The formal sense does not insult or berate anyone, because all the representative believers have passed away. The informal is inappropriate because there are other editors, readers, and notable and reliable sources that uphold the belief.

The Jewish tale of the Golem, then, is a myth -- while the parting of the Sea of Reeds is a belief. While neither has direct evidence, only one is actually believed.

This has become apparent in the subject of Creation Myths, where representative living religions are being equated with dead religions. Living religions quite often employ metaphor in such a way that the word myth does not give an accurate representation of the belief structure.

The changes I've proposed (and tentatively put in the body of this guide article) are not meant to change the original meaning of this article, but rather to clarify what is already implied in the use of tenses of the original wording.EGMichaels (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, be consistent; referring to currently held "Christian myths" and "Hindu beliefs" in a similar context demonstrates an informal use, while "Hindu beliefs" and "Greek myths" does not. is not being consistent. This edit contradicts itself. I have more to say on this but I'm out of time. Nevertheless, I have reverted your change now please do us the courtesy of WP:BRD instead of reverting me again. Ben (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greek myths are not currently believed, hence no contradiction.EGMichaels (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't just change a guideline or style guide like this. Take your suggestions to the village pump. This page is based on a consensus of editors, and requires more than you two talking about it to enact your changes. --King Öomie 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Village pump?EGMichaels (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPP. People gather there to discuss policy. Make a thread, with your diff before and after your change, ask for input. --King Öomie 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest, I didn't like my edit either -- but tried to clarify what was there instead of making a real change. A real change would include the use of myth as symbolic language even for contemporary ideas, which may or may not actually be believed. Santa Claus, for instance, is a modern myth. That's a better way to express a formal use of the term than the tense differences I was exploring from the original wording.EGMichaels (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem. Unilaterally editing a policy that arguments elsewhere rely on is never good. But if you can get community consensus in favor or your edit (or a related one), I have no issues with it. The page has to reflect consensus- not whichever version best suits my arguments. --King Öomie 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence the reason I was afraid to make a substantive change, rather than clarify what already seemed to be there. But I'll go to the Village Pump. Please come too if you get a chance. :-)EGMichaels (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)