Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 5

"Controversial"

I propose that the word "controversial" be added to this list. It's essentially a meaningless phrase, typically used by the writer in an article lede to indicate something they don't like or disagree with. Almost anything can be described as "controversial", but this adds no information for the reader. For example, every single recent President of the United States could accurately be described as "controversial", but including the phrase in the lede of an article (e.g. the controversial thirty-ninth/fortieth/forty-first/... President of the United States) would not assist the reader in any way. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - you will always find someone who disagrees with something. Simply using "controversial" by itself doesn't tell you the most important things, what is the specific topic of controversy and who finds the matter controversial in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea but there are some issues.

Writing controversial historian, controversial massacre, controversial president is useless.

But there are some topics that requires the use of the word. Eg, I think sentences such as : "There is a controversy among historians and scholars concerning the causes of the events. Some claim that... while other consider...".

Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper rule here is "use controversial if you like, but justify it." Otherwise it's just a weasel word, attempting to discredit something without pointing to any real critics. Dcoetzee 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial and controversy are discussed above, starting at the second section on this page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" and "controversy" are quite different things. "Controversial" is a weasel word that means nothing. On the other hand, a "controversy" is a specific issue, which will have been discussed by reliable sources. The discussion above is really about the term "controversy", and I'm only talking about the word "controversial". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck, every president was probably controversial in their day. "Controversy" is a handy neutral phrase to describe something people don't agree on, and I see no reason not to use it. I actually proposed a while back to move all of the "criticism of foo" articles to "foo controversy" for NPOV reasons, but that didn't go nowhere. "Controversial" has some similar uses, since it keys a reader to being aware that there is a debate without taking sides in the debate. Using the word without explaining why the person was controversial is bad writing, but there is a time and a place to use the word and a time and a place to whack people with a dictionary trout when they use it inappropriately. SDY (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with me, since I see no problem with the term "controversy" either? On the other hand, "controversial", as pointed out, doesn't actually add any information, except the information that a Wikipedia editor didn't like something. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's more to it than that - the context is surely the key to it. If you use "controversial" as an adjective, e.g. "controversial incident", "controversial idea", all you are doing is saying that someone somewhere disagrees with it. That is not particularly informative. However, if you say something like "the theory is controversial among scientists" or "has provoked controversy among historians" then you have an informative statement; you're flagging the existence of a controversy among a specific group of people. You've then positioned yourself nicely for a followup sentence describing the rival schools of thought. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's when used as an adjective that it's just adding POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial should clearly not be used for "I don't agree with it" but it is appropriate as "this section should be treated with care since there are differing interpretations and the disagreements are sometimes impolite." For example, saying that firearm policies are controversial in the United States is a reasonable statement for an article about the Libertarian Party. The article can then go on and give the party's view on the subject, but the reader is informed that their position is not the only common view without hashing out all opposing views in that article. It should not be the last statement in the article, but it's a great excuse to drop in a wikilink to another article without going into excruciating detail. It's also good language to use for a lead, since it invites the reader to look further into the subject. The reality is that many rules could be created for its use, but that would run into WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the word "controversial" add when we use them to describe firearm policies? In what way would that differ from just about any other governmental policy? Healthcare policies? Taxation policies? They're all "controversial". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically answering the question, a topic is generally only controversial only if otherwise reliable groups have made strong statements about the topic that disagree with other reliable groups. I would strongly disagree with calling a person controversial, but I see no reason not to call a controversy (especially one that meets notability requirements for its own article) controversial.

To put it another way, most of the words on this page are here because they are often misunderstood, imply a POV, or fit into another broad category of problem. What broad category does controversial belong in? SDY (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a controversy, then describe it as a specific controversy. As for what category "controversial" fits, it fits both "Words that may advance a point of view" and "Words that editorialize". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could put it with Scandal and Affair, but the irony is that section uses the word controversial... SDY (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Theory"

• Current: "use only as if it were used in the context of science".
• Proposed: "treat as jargon and explain if used, otherwise avoid".

This term is often used as a term of art within science but it is often used in everyday conversation to mean something rather different. It ends up being ambiguous, especially with questions of pseudoscience which may claim to be a "theory" and fall short. "Theory" as defined is jargon for a specific field (science), and it should be explained in articles where it must be used (i.e. Philosophy of science). It should be avoided outright in pseudoscience articles, which should discuss "it's not good science" not "it fails to meet the criteria to be called a theory." Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Theory is distinct, well-defined scientific concept, not jargon. Also, the proposed change would mean that literally hundreds of science articles would have to explain the term at each juncture opening the door for fringe promoters to insert their own competing notion. Odd nature (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Distinct and well-defined could be said for any jargon, since that's rather the point of having jargon in the first place. I don't think using or not using the word would help or hinder your average WP:TE, frankly, because "it is/is not a theory" doesn't mean much to them anyway. Saying that science "owns" the word is rather silly, since the Theory article opens with "The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion." Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No vote is necessary here. The editor is attempting to change a longstanding guideline, and it would take consensus to do so. There isn't any consensus as far as I can see.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, give it more than ten minutes before closing the discussion. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If an article is about a scientific topic, that provides sufficient context to clearly indicate the intended meaning. Almost nobody really misunderstands the word "theory," they just abuse its double meaning to call theories they don't like into doubt. Dcoetzee 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just some things to ponder on how broadly understood it is: one article and another article that discuss the topic (search for "Ronald Reagan" in the second one, long article). Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tortured writing

What supports the arguments that a seperate criticism section is often poor writing? What sources on writing non-fiction say that this is poor form and style and what are their reasonings? What are some alternatives we can describe or point to? Hyacinth (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a reliable source on this, and frankly I think in many cases it's a good way to do it, but the main reason I think they're worth avoiding is that the argument becomes "it's the criticism section, it doesn't have to be balanced because it's about criticism!"

Criticism sections also often become more discussion than description, with "he said, she said" neutrality. They're not very encyclopedic. The criticism should have enough weight to be mentioned in the main article and not be shoved into the axe-grinding section.

They can be done right, but they're usually "the world must know about the evils of vegemite and it doesn't fit into any other section." SDY (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that you immediately stopped talking about the quality of the writing and began to address concerns about neutrality. NPOV is a very important concern, but the specific argument I am asking about right now regards poor writing overall, not the neutrality of that writing, whatever its quality otherwise. It would be great if we could strengthen and clarify this point. Hyacinth (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With the vegemite example, criticisms often turn out to quite easily belong into article sections, such as "Nutritional information" or "United States ban rumour". Perhaps an example such as this would provide clarity(?). Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So put them into a new section or incorporate them into a relevant existing section. Not hard. If it doesn't merit its own section and doesn't have sufficient weight to be incorporated into existing sections, why is it in the article?

To get to your first point, a large portion of the words to avoid are bad writing specifically because they have NPOV problems. Criticism sections have exactly the same issue. In the context of wikipedia, NPOV is a crucial element, if not the crucial element, of good writing. To paraphrase an old aphorism: average writing can be understood, good writing cannot be misunderstood. Criticism sections are average writing.

Let me turn the question around: why would a criticism section be good writing? SDY (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without any reasoning provided, the argument that in addition to often being non-neutral, criticism sections are simply a poor way of structuring articles which leads to poor writing within those sections, does not seem like a very strong argument. If this policy has no alternatives to provide to an action which it suggests avoiding, it is impractical at best. If you support the avoidance of criticism sections then I would imagine that you would agree with me on these points and wish to address them by improving this policy so as to assist editors to do so. Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, I provided a fair amount of reasoning. The project page provides more. "No criticism section" implying "work it into the rest of the article, pitch it if it isn't notable" seems kind of obvious, but I guess one line isn't much WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what you are saying is "good writing" = "neutral" in which case the project page could probably be shortened, as that is much clearer. However, note that this may not be entirely accurate as Wikipedia:Featured article criteria includes many criteria which are listed separately from "neutral". Hyacinth (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more "not neutral" implies "not good writing." Symbolically, !A->!B, which is different from A->B and very distinct from !A=!B or your synthesis, which was B=A. Criticism sections can be written neutrally, but claim and scandal and theory can be used appropriately as well.

On a completely unrelated note, how is article structure a word? Should this article be called something else? SDY (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the reasoning given in the project page, the project page refers to the impression of "back-and-forth" between two opinions. However, a criticism section would actually create a half-and-half article structure. I assume that this is what is meant by the reference to a structure creating a "hierarchy of fact", both of which are to be avoided. What unnamed structure is preferred?

And, if one cannot present contrasting opinions in alternation nor one after the other, how one must do it? Simultaneously? Hyacinth (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no hard and fast rules for good writing. There are only suggestions, and most of those depend on audience and context. "He said she said" is rarely good writing. There are better ways to do it.

Take Capital Punishment, which has a separate section for religious views, some of which are critical, some of which are not. It has a section on abolitionism, a notable movement that by definition has some criticism for the topic. There is a lot of criticism in the article, but there isn't a section for "people who oppose the death penalty and rebuttals by people who support the death penalty."

The only style that the guideline frowns upon is a section that contains nothing but criticism and rebuttals. SDY (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or a section containing only criticism. Hyacinth (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That may have pure NPOV issues, but the back and forth and back and forth is also bad writing even if it is nominally balanced. It makes the article read like a debate rather than a description, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate isn't the same as "poor writing". A novel may be brilliantly written, but it wouldn't fit the style guidelines for Wikipedia, and that doesn't mean it is poorly written. Hyacinth (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Need

Just as a random spot, my boss has stricken this word from the available lexicon in writing on the justification that it has an ambiguous meaning. You don't "need" air to live, you must have air to live. You don't "need" six cats an' a puppy an' a gol'fish named fluffy, you want them.

It drives me absolutely batty sometimes, but the logic is actually solid. SDY (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think need is unambiguous as long as it's clear - either explicitly or from context - what the result would be if the need were unfulfilled. I need air to live; I need an instrument to play music; I need to write a grant proposal to receive a grant. That sort of thing. Dcoetzee 07:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Chris, I like most of the changes you made to what I wrote. NB, I meant to have the word "not" in the sentence you intitally reverted, thus reversing my intended meaning: I could see why you might have been confused. I can't think of many instances when anonymous quotes would go into guideline pages; in any event, as expressed, the quote is quite contrary to WP policy. We go by what reliable sources say, not "one man" versus "another man." It also leads people to think that the word terrorist cannot appear in articles, which would of course be absurd. And the aside about what terrorism is/is not, beyond being debatable, is beyond the scope of this page. IronDuke 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "heresy"

There is currently a tag on this page about the usage of the word "heresy". For what it's worth, I don't see many situations in which the word would not be one to avoid, given its very prejudicial nature. However, I can see very limited situations in which it could be used. These might include, for instance, referring to the "Albigensian heresy" in the articles on Saint Dominic or the Dominican Order by that term, as the term has been regularly used in works abaout Dominic and the Dominicans. But even then its usage should be limited, and only when describing not the subject, but the way that the subject was perceived by some outside party, in this case the Dominicans. Otherwise, I really can't see why "heterodox" or similar language, which doesn't have the emotional charge "heresy" does, wouldn't be preferable. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. In some cases, when you're talking about a religious group with a strong central authority, you could make the case that the central authority figure or figures (e.g. the Pope) have sole discretion as to what constitutes heresy. Heresy in Islam might be tougher to pin down, as that religion doesn't have a centrally recognized authority on what constitutes deviation from dogma. IronDuke 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discrimination"

Should discrimination, in descriptions of topics or events, or in categories or portals, a word to avoid, as John Carter suggests at [1]? If so... what other word is there? Is Wikipedia really beholden to popular value judgments and conceptions that don't have an objective basis? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

This word should be added, or at the least, not suggested by WP:WTA#Scandal, affair. The suggestion in itself is a can of worms, because it implies a dispute where often there is only one viewpoint. This is normally violated by way of article and section titles. For example, Isaiah Washington's dismissal from Grey's Anatomy is not a "controversy". On the other hand, if there is a genuine dispute, for example, the AACS encryption key controversy, we should. But at the very least, we should discourage people from thinking "controversy" instantly removes a POV. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fans

Should 'fans' be a word to avoid, when writing about fiction, music, sport, etc. & its reception? I see it most often in weasel word phrases such as "many fans believe this character is based on X" or "this episode was unpopular with some fans". These qualifiers may well be used to introduce the editors' own opinions in the Wikipedia article; if they are supported with a citation (e.g. from a fan-site), that does not necessarily prove the "many fans" statement.

Also there are problems with the word 'fan' itself. It is usually considered fairly informal rather than the kind of language one would expect in an encyclopedia. It is also extremely vague and open to interpretation. E.g. How is a Simpsons fan defined? Is it anyone who watches and enjoys the show fairly frequently, or is it only the kind of devotte who gives over a lot of their spare time thinking & talking & writing about it? It also tends to refer to a demographic who are likely to be either less critical of the subject matter, or critical in rather different ways, compared to either the wider population or the media. So its overuse may distort neutrality in articles. I am sure there must be ways to rephrase statements about fans' opinions more neutrally and more specifically. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In some cases it makes sense; it's increasingly common for fans to have a notable affect on the topic that they're a fan of, and one can reasonably talk about the opinions of a particular fan community without overgeneralizing it to "many" or "most" fans. Dcoetzee 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

However, science-fiction fandom is as well-defined as most other groups of people. Statements about it will be hard to source, but that is not a question of words to avoid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult picks up new articles loaded with undesirable words. Colchicum (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Claim"

Seeing as this is the MoS and all, is it worth pointing out in the section about the word "claim" that some authorities (Fowler I think; book's not to hand) insist thatclaim only be used in the sense of purporting the right to property? That would hopefully further dissuade its misuse. Or is this a bit instruction-creepy? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with British-English advice in this or any style guideline. There's no similar prohibition on "claim" in American style guides. NYTM says "it means to assert a right or contend something, that may be open to [questioning]". The other guides are silent. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove part of the instruction on this subject. Under the heading "Acceptable use", the page now approves this example: "Scholar Smith claims that absolute truth cannot exist. Philosopher Peters claims that it must exist in order for the universe to function." (Another similar one follows.) There's no good reason to use "claims" here, when "states", "believes", "asserts", "contends", "opines", etc. are available.

The word does properly refer to an assertion of a right to property ("both Britain and Argentina claimed the islands"). It's also proper in the context of a legal proceeding. In U.S. law, "claim for relief" is an important term in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in many state rules modeled after the federal rules. Those usages are OK. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Terror allowed?

I've requested a comment at Talk:Sejny_Uprising#Same_old_business_again. Briefly, I believe that the use of controversial word "terror" in that context (describing Polish interwar gov't policy toward Lithuanians), referenced to only a single, non-English publication, is not acceptable - either in main body or in a quote. Lithuanian editors disagree (disclaimer: I a Pole). Comments by neutral editors would be highly appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We're having a discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC over an application of the word that has come to figure in the 2008 Presidential election. A recent addition[2] to the terrorism section has come up in that context, and I think we should consider modifying or removing that addition:

"Or, if multiple reliable sources use it, it may 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 the word appears in."

There are a few problems with this approach. First, counting usage of a word in sources to establish that the word applies to a subject is original research - this is a common question throughout the project. Second, it is unreliable. If the subject is very well known (in our case, the Weatherman (organization) there are many thousands of sources (e.g. [3]). It is not a straightforward task to review the sources to decide if "terrorist" is or is not used in reliable sources. Moreover, "reliable sources" tend to use the Queen's English but are nevertheless authorities only their subject matter, not as exemplars of the language, so they're not exactly the paradigm of controversial word usage. Finally, even if we could show that reliable sources with some threshold of frequency use the term, that does not establish that the use is a notable thing worth reporting. For example, many reliable sources refer to women college students (or used to, in the U.S.) as "co-eds". That does not establish that it is worth reporting in an article, say, on colleges, that women are widely known as co-eds. When the subject is the more politically charged term "terrorist" there has to be a reason why we would or would not want to say in an article that someone has been called a terrorist, and getting there indirectly by finding usages is an uncertain thing. Ideally one would have to find a preponderance of reliable sources that talk about the term being applied, not sources that merely apply the term. At some point I would like to modify the guideline to clarify this - but obviously independent of our current discussion (it being bad form to modify guidelines in order to make arguments).Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

lead section

I added "Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources" to the lead; I hope that's clearer for some readers. I was also a little more specific about what "jargon" is and I gave a better link, and I removed the link to WEASEL ... temporarily I hope. There's general agreement on the talk page at WEASEL that that page needs a lot of work. As always, feel free to revert or discuss. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A common error is

In the section WP:WTA#It should be noted, it is important to note/know, a common error is, it says:

• Many people think that dolphins are fish, however, this is not true. They are mammals.

While this may be true, it is irrelevant what "many people" think. Just state the fact: "Dolphins are mammals." See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

I may (or may not) agree in this particular instance, but I belive there are situations where common misconceptions are important to mention. As a strong example, see Monty Hall problem. In that article, the misconception is documented with citations - not only to sources that share in the misconception, but also to sources that discuss the misconception and make it a subject of academic study.

Of course, in many cases, the statement that something is a common error must be considered original research (and also unnotable), unless it is supported by citations.

In the cases where the common error is notable, perhaps the phrase "A common error is" is not the best way to convey that fact, so maybe it should be avoided - e.g., the dolphin thing could be rewritten as

Although dolphins [fish-like facts about dolphins], dolphins are mammals, not fish.

In some cases, not stating and debunking a misconception may cause frequent fly-by edits to add the misconception as if it were a fact. Avoiding this is, I think, in itself a valid reason to mention a misconception, though of course it should be done in an enyclopaedic fashion.

What I'm trying to say is, I think the project page should be slightly less absolute in rejecting the possibility of mentioning that something is a common error. I'm not sure how to change the phrasing, though.--Noe (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. It is tangential to the purpose of this guideline anyway. Geometry guy 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of this guideline. It is too long. In general.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this guideline is way too long?

In general, guidelines which are as long as this one is have a high potential for not being read because they are way too long, and nobody wants to read a long guideline in general. This one, it seems to me, is way way too long. It keeps saying the same thing, again and again, in slightly different contexts, listing every single word (with some exceptions) that anyone could possible abuse in a Wikipedia article. Do we really want to be doing that? Surely it is best to avoid long guidelines in order to increase the chance that editors will read them, get the general idea, and remember them. This guideline is more that 50KB. It is way, way too long. A page is often described as being too long when it is more than 32KB. This one is longer than that. It is more like an essay, or even a term paper. The use of long guidelines should be given careful consideration by editors, as short guidelines are often preferable to long ones. The length of a guideline can have a significant effect on whether anyone wants to read it, for example. Long guidelines should not be used merely to excuse editors from thinking for themselves and applying common sense. In other words, they should be shortened. In general. Geometry guy 16:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, but on the other hand, I'm happy we haven't been saying to people, "Don't add that! Too long!" Better to do it the way we've done it, and let people have their say, let the words have an effect, and then pare it down after a while to just the stuff people are most likely to need, after consensus has taught us what that is. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep copyediting(++) begun. 5Kbytes removed so far. Geometry guy 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I notice that people keep getting confused (in various revert wars and talk page comments, here and at WEASEL) over the difference between language that is causing an NPOV problem and language that makes a statement unverifiable (too vague, or can't be proved true or false). We might be able to shorten and focus both pages a bit if we stick to NPOV problems on this page and verifiability problems on WEASEL (which I'd like to rename to "Verifiable language" btw). What do you guys think? I'll make a list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like this guideline (whatever it is called) to focus on NPOV problems caused by the use of words: in particular, I'd like to move the English variants issue and the dates issue to "see also". I'm not completely sure about the overlap with verifiability (once a POV statement is attributed it becomes neutral again), but I agree in principle with your suggestion. Geometry guy 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm stopping copyediting for today, with 10K bytes removed. I deliberately started with the bottom end of the guideline, which is more peripheral to the thrust of WTA. The principle I found most useful is to organise titles of sections around issues rather than individual words. A section title involving words to avoid is an open invitation to every editor to provide their own commentary on the use or misuse of each word, with examples of every possible abuse.

It remains (mainly) to copyedit sections 2 and 3. My plan is to use the same principle, by isolating themes rather than words, and illustrating the themes by words and examples, rather than letting the words take over. Geometry guy 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay done. In the end, I didn't isolate themes for section 2, but this could now easily be done, if editors like that approach. The guideline has been reduced from over 50KB to under 32KB, mostly just by copyediting and eliminating repetition. Also the table of contents should now fit on one screen for most editors.

I believe the guideline could be shortened further, and that a good guideline should not be more than 20-25KB, but that probably requires choices of focus, not just further copyediting++. Happy editing, Geometry guy 20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just plain too much!

After reading this article completely, it appears to me that it is simply impossible to write an article without violating at least a dozen of the no-no's that it contains. - mbeychok (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be called "Words to watch out for" instead? Anyway, WP:IGNORE.--Noe (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not an excuse for bad rules. It is also not an excuse for ignoring rules. Instead, it is an exhortation to put improving the encyclopedia first. Its one beautiful line is

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Take that line to heart. Geometry guy 19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it be known that that I think we agree. "Words to avoid" sounds quite categorical, and e.g. as I pointed out in the section #A common error is above, there must be exceptions to such a catagorical ban. That does not mean that the rules are bad, as a rule, but that occasionally WP:IAR kicks in. Only if that happens often, and especially if we can see a pattern in the ways it happens, we should modify the rules accordingly.

Nice work trimming the article, by the way!--Noe (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Thanks for the support. Geometry guy 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable use may not be

I removed

• "Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."

as an acceptable use, because I don't believe it is. Consider

• "Before the democratic convention, Clinton disagreed with Obama's policies. After she lost the nomination, however, she backed him 100%."

Of course, this is bad without the word "however", but the word "however" definitely makes it worse. Geometry guy 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're saying the issue is WP:SYNTH; which gives me two reasons not to want it on this page; it might be WP:SYNTH, and I'd prefer the page focus on WP:NPOV issues. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I removed it from the page as an "acceptable use". I am neutral about re-adding it as a "dubious use": the "however" here is a neutrality issue – you can almost imagine the eyebrows being raised knowingly. Geometry guy 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Words that label"

The section entitled "Words that label" makes it sound as if the problem with describing people or groups with words like racist, cult, or perversion is that these are not the words favored by that person or group themselves. This is beside the point, though. The problem with these expressions is not that they are "outside" (or, more formally, etic), but that they are pejorative: they carry a strong negative connotation, and as such are decidedly non-neutral.

We use etic expressions all the time ... when they are neutral. For instance, we describe religious and political movements without adopting wholesale their internal terminology; we describe mental disorders primarily in terms of their etic medical symptoms, not in terms of the subjective experience of their sufferers. But in so doing we also avoid pejorative descriptions. --FOo (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The section needs some work, and the examples may not be the best (they overlap with other sections anyway). It is not intended to give the impression that the bad thing is that the words are not favored by the group itself: that is merely given as a warning sign. But I'm not sure these words are wikt:pejorative in the dictionary sense of depreciatory (see also pejorative). I think the point of the section is to note that even words which can have a clear meaning (e.g. racist, someone who believes in or asserts the superiority of a particular race, someone who practices racial discrimination, etc.) are often used in a non-descriptive way as labels. Wikipedia articles are perfectly entitled to say negative things about people and groups, if that is what reliable sources do, but they should not imply negative things through misuse of words. Geometry guy 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update

I just finished the monthly WP:Update for general style guidelines (that is the list of changes for the month). Please don't be offended that I didn't include the great work from September on this page; you'll see in the disclaimer that if it looks like work is continuing, I push off doing the changes until the following month. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Only, just

I've added a short section on avoiding the use of the words "only" and "just" in conjunction with a measurable trait such as time or distance. There is quite a bit of this sort of language in the encyclopedia, where we apply a value judgement (positive or negative; the words can work either way with ease) to a measurement. Please review and improve the language as needed... and yes, in light of recent discussions, I tried to keep it short. ;-) thanks. Warren -talk- 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whinging about style

May we please add the infelicitous phrase, "An example would be...", to the list of crimes not to be perpetrated upon the innocent reader? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly?

I removed this sentence from the Editorialize section:

Furthermore, a word like "clearly" can be useful to indicate that a step of an explanation is as simple as it looks.

In the context of everything else that is said and intended by WTA, this business of "clearly" being okay really seems inappropriate. Whether something is simple or complex is not for Wikipedia and its editors to judge; only by citing sources can we bring these matters of opinion into an encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 14:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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}}[4]. 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.[5]--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

←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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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".[6][7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Getting us back on task, I hope.

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Arbitrary section break 2

User:IronDukeCerejota 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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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

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:

1. The WP:5P need for NPOV overrides everything. In many discussions many people forget this. Lets not do it here: NPOV trumps all.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Concentration camps - when not to use the term

Please comment on at Talk:Internment#Internment vs concentration camp. I have seen the term concentration camps used in non-Nazi contexts, where it causes much heated discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Side issue re:militant, paramilitary, partisan

This is a fork from the overall debate over terrorism. Irrespective of the outcome of that debate, I propose that the offering of "militant, paramilitary, and partisan" as alternatives to the word terrorist be stricken. These words are vague euphemisms that obscure rather than clarify the material under discussion, and we should not encourage their use. If a section is to be rewritten to avoid the use of the word "terrorist," we should encourage concrete, definite, and specific language. Are there any objections? I would have thought this a relatively uncontroversial edit, but PBS reverted. Ray (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Object strongly. "Terrorism " is a more vague euphemism that the alternatives you reject. PBS is correct. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. I also don't like the equivalence of "terrorist" with "freedom fighter." The former is used widely by reliable sources, the latter is pretty much not, probably even less than freedom fries. IronDuke 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Using "militant" as opposed to "terrorist" does seem reasonable to me. To me the word's vagueness makes is neutral enough to so that it wins the agreement of maximum perspectives. Militant certainly does not carry the POV that terrorist carries.

Certainly, freedom fighter should also never be used.VR _talk 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're striving for vagueness here. Indeed, that's a reason people have been arguing against "terrorist," that it's too vague. IronDuke 01:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by "vagueness" is that it doesn't carry a specific POV, not that it doesn't carry a specific meaning. Militant is a well-defined term, and used all the time in reliable sources, albeit with broader meaning than the word "terrorist".VR _talk 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would argue that the word terrorist is actually a lot more specific, as it connotes acts (generally, the killing of non-combatants for political ends), whereas "militant" could simply mean "one who feels very strongly." IronDuke 01:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke whould you then categorise the dropping the atom bombs in WWII was a terrorist act as they were targeted against non-combatants for political ends? Who is a combatant if a state is not at in a state of armed conflict. For example was Billy Wright (loyalist) a combatant or a non-combatant? 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, so does that make U.S. air attacks against "terrorists" that go wrong and kill civilians terrorist attacks? After all the U.S. attacks that are post an outrage are not pre-emptive strikes but punishment strikes for for political ends and it is not unknown for them to cause "collateral damage". --PBS (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The word paramilitary, gunman and bomber were are frequently used to describe such people who live in Northern Ireland. They are used by all the major news organisations as more specific words that carry less bias than those of volunteer and terrorist. --PBS (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should imitate the poor English style of newspeak as exemplified in certain newspapers, especially when certain news organizations are famous for being exemplars of a particular politically correct point of view. Ray (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the word terrorism is used to describe non-state actors. Though states may use the tactics of terror it is rare, except in cases of hyperbole, to label them terrorists themselves. As always, caution and case-by-case bases should be our watchwords. IronDuke 14:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"certain news organizations are famous for being exemplars of a particular politically correct point of view" should mean nothing to us. Just as we don't reject news sources for being politically incorrect, we shouldn't reject them, or their language for being politically correct. In fact, the discussion of political correctness shouldn't be a factor here, NPOV should.VR _talk 22:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not at issue in this side discussion. The only issue is whether we should encourage people to use vague terms like militant and partisan in lieu of more descriptive and precise language. Ray (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I've said that these terms are more neutral than the word "terrorist", and therefore acceptable alternatives. Which word should be used will obviously depend on the situation and case. "Militant" is a well-defined term, with a specific meaning. It may be a good substitute in some cases, not in others. No one has said, that militant has to be used.VR _talk 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the specific, well-defined meaning of militant? IronDuke 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke; there is no agreed international definition of the word "terrorism". None. The UN could not agree on one. For example the "Shock'n'Awe" tactics at the start of the invasion of Iraq met every criteria you could come up with; civilians targeted with the intention of terrorizing them into submission. Sarah777 (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, you're off-topic for this thread. We are discussing whether militant is more "well-defined" as a term than "terrorist." As to your point "the "Shock'n'Awe" tactics at the start of the invasion of Iraq met every criteria you could come up with..." Actually, no: people who have studied the issue could rebut that easily. And that there are no universally accepted definitions of a term doesn't mean we can't use it. WP abounds with such terms. IronDuke 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I think you misunderstand me again. My reason for supporting "militant" is because it is more neutral, not that it is a better defined term. However, I did say that militant is well-defined, or in other words it has a stable and widely agreed upon definition. Some of them can be seen here. Perhaps you feel that I'm wrong in saying that and have found multiple, opposing definitions of the term. If so, please correct me.VR _talk 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I understand you pretty well, but am happy to hear any clarifications. This thread was started by Ray making a simple point: "militant" can't replace "terrorist" because militant doesn't mean the same thing... it's a much vaguer term. Lack of accuracy + vagueness =/= Neutral. What you link to (and that's appreciated) just shows my point. You have everything from "confrontational campaign methods" to "vigorous...support of a cause" to "hawkish congressman" to "highly competitive sales representative" to actual political violence. Can this term really replace terrorist? IronDuke 20:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I only meant to refer to the definitions with links (so we know the source): "belligerent: engaged in war", "Aggressive and violent behavior in pursuit of a political cause", "An individual who engages in violent or overtly aggressive actions" etc. These definition may not be perfect, e.g. the last one should say "individual or group", but they is no major difference. Finally, I said that militant can replace terrorist under some circumstances, not all. Do you agree with that?VR _talk 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree with militant as long as reliable sources favored it. You see my theory here? It's not about what we think the words mean, it's about what reliable sources use. We can't say, "Hmmm... Scholar X (and thousands like him) uses "terrorist" to refer to IronDuke, but we want to be cautious, because there are some definitions of the word militant which, in our view, more closely reflect IronDuke." It isn't about our view -- not about truth or even what we might call fairness -- it's about the sources. IronDuke 22:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if some sources describe a group as militant, and others as terrorist, we should go for the "militant" (or something more neutral?) noting that others consider it a terrorist. But if no source calls the group militant, then I agree, militant is not an appropriate term.VR _talk 07:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I think you have an unhealthy dose of recenticism. The Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter debate happens all over reliable sources in historic perspective, ranging from the Russian revolutionaries in the 19th century to the Irgun, Haganah and Stern Gang in pre-Independence Israel. In more recent times it includes the national liberation conflicts in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Currently, reliable sources do not agree around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Indian-Pakistani conflict, and the Civil war in Colombia. This isn't just about the ideological conflict some have raised but actual use in reliable sources: Reuters, AP, BBC, DW, Al-Jazeera and other major newswires/new sources use terrorist very sparingly, and their usage is dominant in press coverage world-wide. In the academic world, including conflict studies and military science, the definition of terrorism is very narrow, and a clear differentiation is made between irregular warfare and terrorism - including by dominant voices such as General David Petraeus. In almost all cases "terrorist" as an adverb to an action, not an adjective to an individual or organization, is used. Organizations are invariably described as "militant" or "paramilitary", and to lesser extent "guerillas".

According to the Online Etymology dictionary' entry on terrorism the T v FF was first fully formulated in a 1956 for the Cypriot conflict.

Having said that reliable sources in general avoid the word terrorist - but use terrorism - again, IronDuke, your argument that we must follow RS violates NPOV. I care much more about NPOV, and so should you.

I fully agree with using "militant, paramilitary, and partisan" as neutral alternatives, and in this case letting the editors reach consensus in each individual article. Ray, your edit was super-controversial, and a look at the archives to see how that formulation was reached will reveal this. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota, I think you have an unhealthy dose of not-paying-attention-ism. This is not a thread in which we all sit back and opine about how we wish reliable sources used the word terrorism. It's about whether that word is more or less specific than militant or paramilitary. Anyone who thinks that the latter words are more specific has some reading to do. IronDuke 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota, we are in a sad state indeed if a paraphrase of an earlier portion of the style guideline is super-controversial (I quote, specifically, the first sentence of the first section of this guideline, "Words and expressions should be avoided if they 1. are ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific." Your discussion of terrorism properly belongs in the terrorism section of this discussion, and may add something to that section. This side discussion is about style, not NPOV. We are talking about the appropriateness, in a stylistic sense, of various alternatives to the word terrorism.

"Militant" or "paramilitary" are words that have their appropriate places, but they are never more specific, or less ambiguous, than terrorist. Where the word terrorist is used to describe terrorist activities, more specific words are more helpful, and to use "militant" or "paramilitary" to describe operations such as suicide bombings is a slander by association on all militant and paramilitary groups around the world that do not partake in terrorist activities. "Paramilitary" includes such groups as the Boy Scouts, the Civil Air Patrol, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, etc. "Militant" has been used to describe organizations including political advocacy groups like NARAL, Operation Rescue, NOW, etc. You might see where it might be unhelpful to the reader to have these groups in the same category as Black September, Al Qaeda, and the like.

Where the word terrorist is used to place undue emphasis on an organization's terrorist activities, militant or paramilitary may be more helpful. Ray (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we are in a sad state. I think the overwhelming majority of the editors see the common sense in not feeding trolls by using emotionally charged non-neutral language in controversial articles. They also respect the intelligence of our readers, and do not condescend - like the media often does - by using emotional short-hand like "terrorist" but my providing a collection of facts, that together, will make any thinking person reach a reasonable conclusion that they are indeed terrorist. Its about the nuance an NPOV encyclopedia should have, and its why we are different from a news aggregator or even Wikinews.

Consensus can change , and this is why we take time to discuss this, but please be aware that the changes you are proposing go against long-standing consensus and have been discussed many times before. So your edit being super-controversial doesn't put us in a bad place: it just means that it went against long-standing, hard-fought consensus.

This is all about neutrality of language, and the actual meaning of words. Paramilitary is in general used for armed organizations who engage in military activities on behalf (covertly or overtly) of a State actor but remain outside of the official military structure. Militant implies armed groups with a political goal; NARAL, Operation Rescue, NOW cannot be neutrally described as "militant" as they are not armed nor are their actions defined by violence and confrontation, but rather by the term you used: political advocacy groups. Partisans is the weakest of all, because it does have a slight political flavoring rather than armed (unless talking about the Spanish civil war/WWII era), but I can live with it under certain circumstances. All three words can be used to describe groups that are described by RS as "terrorist" in a manner that is NPOV, and that doesn't hide the fact that they are engaged in violent actions, including terrorist actions if that is the case.

Of course, these are guidelines on usage, and not hard prohibitions, and other words such as "gunman", "guerilla", and "hijacker" could be used in a neutral fashion. It all depends on the context, and it all depends on the emotionality of the words. However, I disagree we should not provide a suggestion on how to implement the inherent lack of neutrality the term "terrorist" has: we should provide an example of what is meant, and these are good examples.

Here the difference is neutrality, and I think this discussion will always be centered around this issue, and I am disappointed that people keep to try to make it about RS or about prevalent usages, or "political correctness" or even about precision in language. We are not required to use precise language, we are encouraged to use precise language. We are, however, required to use neutral language. When the two conflict, there is no discussion: neutrality trumps all. Its really that simple.

Unless you define wikipedia's policy of NPOV as "political correctness" - which you can - the argument is a straw man. If you do think NPOV is "political correctness", then argue for its modification over at WP:NPOV, not here. WP:WTA will cease to exist the minute WP:NPOV ceases to exist, and will continue to exist and be enforceable as long as neutrality is the principle: WP:WTA is simply spelling out the community experience in applying NPOV to articles. Modifying WP:WTA beyond NPOV will have the unintended (or intended?) consequence of undermining NPOV, and this is unacceptable as long as NPOV remains a pillar of WP. As long as this is the criteria, all arguments for general acceptance of non-neutral terms like "terrorist" will be futile. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A curious post. It is, of course, you, Cerejota, who are twisting NPOV into political correctness or, more specifically, into your very own, personal idea of what terrorism is. The vast majority of reliable sources who use that word, when they are more or less in unanimity, don't outweigh your opinion -- your opinion doesn't even count enough to be outweighed (nor does mine). Your idea of what terrorism might be is of no moment whatever when set against reliable sources -- and reliably reporting what reliable sources say is the heart and soul of NPOV. IronDuke 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry IronDuke, but I believe you should (re?)read WP:MORALIZE (part of NPOV, not an essay) and probably WP:NPOVREASON. It illustrates my point much more succinctly than I have. Your reading of what NPOV is in the context of wikipedia is incorrect, and the vast majority of editors agree it is incorrect. Mine is correct, and if you feel that my opinion is in any way politically correct, then you believe NPOV is politically correct. If you feel it has a politically correct context, you should raise that over at WT:NPOV, not here.

In the specific, "terrorist" fails WP:ASF in almost every case.

BTW, appeal to motive is not very productive. Please refrain from doing so and concentrate on discussing the topic, not the motives or the people. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. Your combination of naked assertion with a stew of links to policies you're not following is unpersuasive. And it is you who are personalizing this debate. Feel free to stop doing that at any time. IronDuke 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel that I personalized the debate, it was not my intention. Now, I am curious, how am I not following these policies? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll be doing me a favor if you don't apologize for what you suspect may be my feelings; in any case, I don't require an apology from you, so you needn't worry. You are misinterpreting NPOV to suit your own, private notions of what the truth may be. These notions may be wiser than the reliable sources we use, but we cannot take your word for it. We have nothing to rely on but sources -- reflecting them accurately, and in the proportion we find them. IronDuke 23:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you insist in appealing to motive, what are my "own, private notions of what the truth might be"? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could review your own contributions on this talk page. IronDuke 04:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Then they are very public notions of the same value as your own very public notions. But decidedly not private. So I am at a loss as to what was your point? Care to explain it so I can understand it? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota, I'm afraid I have to contradict you directly on a factual matter here. The usages I have cited for the terms paramilitary and militant above are common to idiomatic English. Paramilitary as used by native speakers (or near-native, such as myself) of English simply means a non-military organization having aspects of military life. This may include arms and combat, but is more often used to refer to uniforms, military-like merit badges and rank structure, military-like discipline, etc. To claim otherwise is to deny fact (in fact, I pulled most of those examples from our article Paramilitary). Similarly, militant is used to refer to somebody who confrontationally promotes a particular point of view, regardless of whether they do so in an armed fashion. These usages are born out by just about every dictionary of the English language you might care to consult. Ray (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I do hear your point, and it actually does go into the wider point you have made of precision, so that's good that you elaborate. (I don't agree about the common usage of English you ascribe to "paramilitary" but lets focus).

Language is about context. When I discussed the meaning of "paramilitary", it was solely in is meaning as an alternative to "terrorist", which is one of the possibilities of the word, not under other contexts. Under other contexts, it might be a WTA itself! For example, "paramilitary" used to describe Scouting will fail WP:ASF, but it will not fail it when used to describe Ulster Defence Association. It is the WP:ASF test that is important. Neutrality trumps all.

One of my favorite formulations to describe a terrorist organization in wikipedia is the one for Lehi (group) (aka Stern gang). They were considered a terrorist organization by the British and hence by the Allies, and even by other Zionists. However we describe them as an "armed underground Zionist organization". This is neutral, factually correct, verifiable, and well sourced, and leaves nothing to the imagination. Then the article presents facts around Lehi, satisfying WP:MORALIZE. Why don't we call them terrorists? Because we do not moralize. We have brains, and we should be allowed to use them.

(As a side note, the Yitzhak Shamir quote in the Lehi article illustrates precisely why WP:TERRORIST makes sense, it is is quite literally an example of "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter")

Describing Lehi as a terrorist organization in wikipedia is not only wrong, but counter-productive: it would serve the purpose of inflaming passions and generating a POV war, instead of having a fact-based account of a significant historical actor.

It goes back to the point that WTA is about neutrality, not language: if we must be imprecise in order to be neutral, so be it. Hence the Scouts are a youth movement, not a paramilitary organization. Lehi is an armed underground Zionist organization, not a terrorist organization.

Let me ask you, if your issue is lack of precision of the suggest alternatives, will it satisfy you if we added text suggesting that people come up with their own formulations (as was done with Lehi)? If it is the examples, a not considering the word "terrorist" a neutral term, what bothers you, then lets work together to reach a consensus. But if you think that the word "terrorist" is a neutral word in most circumstances, then we disagree, likewise if you think that we must quote sources as opposed to citing them when it comes to non-neutral terms. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by a committee, to be sure. I am not terribly pleased with the current version of the last paragraph, but it does address my concerns somewhat, as the guideline can no longer be read to advocate a blanket replacement of terrorist by some vaguer and mushier term. Does anybody have a strong objection to the current wording? Ray (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the change and added an "examples" sub-head. The idea is to keep neutrality, and not feed trolls, not to have to go around policing articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind; I removed the examples since the section is long enough, and we don't want to tie our guideline to particular articles where the wording may change. Ray (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I do mind if your only objections are length and wording chnaging in the examples. Policy pages need to be as long as they need to be in order to convey unambiguously what they mean, and it cost nothing to put it in. If the examples change their wording, then we change the examples, no problem (In fact, if the current examples are disagreeable, we can choose others). Many policy pages have links to pages as examples, and even editorial text, including WTA itself in another section (abortion). However, examples of usage are clearly called for to provide real editing examples of community consensus. I am restoring unless you have other objections. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I say this ... firstly, the examples illustrate the overall guideline, on which consensus is far from being achieved, even if we are happy with this last paragraph. Secondly, the examples implicate this guideline directly with particular sides of particular debates, therefore making it more likely to be controversial in the future, particularly among editors with a partisan slant on one side or another of each of the examples. I would prefer not to prejudge particular potential debates on which I have not conducted research/do not have extensive knowledge. If you must use examples, I would prefer you use hypothetical ones not tied to any existing article, and wait til our discussion on the broader guideline above reaches a conclusion. Ray (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Formulation on terrorism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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.[8] --PBS (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Martyr

Should "martyr" be a word that we should avoid using? Sometimes martyr is used in a manner similar to the word "freedom fighter".VR _talk 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. VR, you have come upon my particular problem with the section on terrorism, which to me comes perilously close to censorship. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of terms in the English language with strong emotional overtones which can be used in ways that violate WP:NPOV. However, almost all of these terms also have perfectly unobjectionable meanings and usages as well. My argument above is that terrorism is definitely one of them; in particular, I have noticed with some amusement that no strong argument can be made against the usage of the word terrorist in the examples I have provided. Bluntly, where martyr is controversial and insinuates a particular point of view, it should be avoided. However, it is a perfectly good term when applied in the common usage, such as to the early martyrs of the Christian church, or to describe objectives or characterizations of prominent figures. For instance, WP:NPOV should have no problme with the formulation "Martyrdom for the faith is a principal objective of many suicide bombers," but many would object strenuously to describing suicide bombers as "martyrs" without context. Context is everything. Ray (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Martyrs of the early church should be called "Christian martyrs", which implies that they are seen as martyrs only by Christians. So I guess there's nothing wrong with the term as long as we are clear which group sees the person as a martyr. We may also have to specify martyrs by sect (e.g. Catholic martyr) as the same person can be seen by one religion as a martyr, and another as a heretic.VR _talk 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not favour using the word "martyr" as if it was some word with a universally agreed meaning rather than a pov term. It is in exactly the same category as "terrorist". To be avoided as per WP:NPOV.Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If to use a word requires a universally agreed meaning, the English language would be poor indeed. I suspect that those of us with grounding in formal logic and computer programming would do better than those without, however. :) Ray (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote that I was going to qualify the term "universal" - but I said (to myself) t'would be clear from the context. However I didn't allow sufficiently for the limitations of the computer programmer. My sincerest apologies :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW Ray, could you hazard a definition of "informal logic"? I worry that I might have it. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I like what VR has said in terms of context. I do not see the term as analogous with the situation with "terrorist" or "extremist", although it does have some elements in common with "freedom fighter". Being thought of as a martyr is generally an honorable thing, and in the context of some religions and cultures even a desirable thing, whereas no one will admit or want to be described as a terrorist or extremist. One is a positive bias, the other a negative bias. Positive bias is some what benign, similar in a sense to peacock terms, but negative bias is damaging to the project. I am not sure however this is a good candidate for inclusion as a WTA. Is there any on going controversy in wikipedia around its use? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point that "martyr" has a positive bias while "terrorist" is a loaded negative phrase. I retract; 'terrorist' is not in the same category as martyr; in terms of breaching WP:NPOV it is much worse. Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm inclined to believe that neutrality doesn't have a bias towards the unduly positive or the unduly negative. Excessive positivity may do as much to damage the project as excessive negativity. I say this as somebody who used to spend a lot of time marking spam for speedy deletion and removing overly rosy portions of company prospectuses. :) Ray (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. But can we agree that negative bias is more yukkie than positive bias? Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In that it's more likely to provoke a barfight if spoken in the wrong time and place? Probably :) But that's hardly an operative criterion for Wikipedia :) Ray (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But the "operative criterion for Wikipedia" seems to be whether it matches the pov of Anglo-American editors. That is why we must defend WP:NPOV against operative criteria. Do we have a better objective/NPOV standard than the political/emotional fetish of American editors? If not, we don't have NPOV. See IronDukes bizarre comments about the opinions of "rest of the world" - 'nough said. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on how martyr is used. "Tomas More was a martyr to his beliefs" is different to "Thomas More was martyred for his beliefs". In the first has an implication of dying for his beliefs (no one can dispute that) the second can be read as implying "murdered" and that carries political/religious points of view. The same thing can be seen in whether the start of the More article should be "Sir" or "Saint". It is not controversial to acknowledge his knighthood and start the article with "Sir" (in a way for a number of reasons people do not agree with the use of Sir Bob Geldof), but "Saint" in this case carries a political/religious point of view, and is something that the More lead IMHO treats in a sensitive way without bias by stating the facts (WP:ASF). The problem with the word terrorist as this long discussion has shown is that (probably thanks to Wikipedia's systemic bias) many editors do not immediately recognise that it carries a pejorative meaning, hence the need to single out "extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter particular" for special consideration in a way that "martyr" probably does not as most editors will be aware of its potential bias. --PBS (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

An experiment on sources and word frequency and some meta-comments on NPOV and sources (terrorist)

There are essentially two argumentative lines; one concentrates on NPOV emerging from the reliable sources in aggregate, and another concentrating on WP:BIAS and the ability for editors to choose the wording. I think both arguments are valid, in so far as they both are interpreting WP:NPOV, but like Christians and the Bible, they are picking and choosing from NPOV instead of taking it all in, even the seeming contradictions. If we read WP:NPOVREASON and WP:NPOVHISTORY, and then take the discussions on what neutrality means in wikipedia, and the resulting guidelines, a wider picture emerges: NPOV is an invitation for editors to engage in consensus regardless of their view on a given subject, a requirement for reliable sources to verify information, a requirement for editors to not engage in biased sourcing, a requirement we give due weight in controversies, a requirement not to provide novel synthesis of ideas not presented in RS, and ultimately resting on the community consensus for the final word on what is a neutral article.

This last one is important: ultimately it is discussion by editors that determines content. When we discuss and develop guidelines, what we are essentially doing is providing a short-hand so that other editors can concentrate on editing, instead of having these discussions.

That said IronDuke does raise an interesting an valid point on his insistence on sources. For one, we are indeed reliant on reliable sources for all of our content (or should be), for another NPOV does depend on what sources say to follow undue weight, novel theory, and other requirements. I think some of the arguments presented here have ignored the validity of this point, including even myself. This is an error, because it is a valid point.

I decided then to do a little experiment on aggregate information using online tools to search reliable sources.

The experiment uses Google Scholar and News as its tools, looking for two variations on three different search strings. I didn't use regular Google Search because it will include a great number of unreliable sources, such as blogs and partisan, biased websites, whereas Scholar and News while not guaranteed to be neutral, will definitely include a higher proportion of reliability.

The strings and variations with search results:

A)

1)"Al-Qaeda" terrorist - News: 528,000 Scholar: 30,900

2)"Al-Qaeda" -terrorist - News: 370,000 Scholar: 11,700

B)

1)"Al-Qaeda" terrorism - News: 216,000 Scholar: 26,500

2)"Al-Qaeda" -terrorism - News: 388,000 Scholar: 10,200

I was surprised by the results in more than one way. While expected the bigger proportion to be for the includes, I expected it to be much larger. And certainly was surprised by the B2 News result. It seems news reliable sources use the term "terrorist" 59% of the time and "terrorism" 36% of the time when connected to "Al-Qaeda". Scholarly articles use the term "terrorist" 73% of the time and "terrorism" also 73% of the time when connected to "Al-Qaeda".

What this says is that there is some merit to IronDuke's position, but it also reveals a weakness: the use is not absolute as he claimed. The "tiny minority" criteria in due weight is not satisfied, and in fact "terrorism" is in the minority in pretty much the same proportion.

And of course, my analysis has an even stronger weakness: it is quantitative and not qualitative. A qualitative analysis is essentially what we call "consensus", and is too large an exercise for one man to perform.

I think what this means for WTA "terrorist" is that we should still list it with some additional caveats.

Its use is not absolute, and when it proves controversial, we should err on the side of being neutral. But where it is overwhelming, such as in the case of September 11 attacks and Ajmal Amir I think it should be allowed if such is the consensus.

WTA exists for those cases were it is helpful to avoid certain words, and to ensure that bias doesn't creep in. Ultimately, we can WP:IAR, but to ignore something, it must first exist.

"Extremist" and "freedom fighter" should be in because these are obviously biased terms, that we should always avoid, as they qualify unambiguously for or against the subject. Wikipedia can do without adjectives. "Terrorist" is however more ambiguous: it is a legal term in many countries (like "murderer" for those guilty of murder), it is also widely used in reliable sources to describe the facts. What cinches it for me in this sense is the use in scholarly sources, which are generally of a much higher quality in terms of bias.

In action, I propose we separate "Terrorist" from "Extremist" and "Freedom fighter" in WTA, and each with their separate usage and rules. To continue to join the two is to murk the issue as they are different. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Since I often edit topics related to ongoing warfare, in which the words terrorism and or freedom fighting appear, I would like to add my personal thoughts:

• The word terorrist is degenerative term, used throughout history by various warring parties to discredit their enemy. During World War II it was also used constantly by Nazi Germany to dub resistance forces as less-than human.
• In recent history this was also the case. The British dubbed all IRA members terrorists, and Yugoslavia officially registered the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) as a terrorist organization, south africa listed the ANC of Nelson Mandela as a terrorist organization, while western countries considered them freedom fighters. The same goes for the Afghan Mujahideen fighting the Soviets, and the Tibetan rebels fighting the Chinese, both largely funded by the CIA.
• These last examples of state differences are important to note when you look at the List of designated terrorist organizations. Sometimes organizations are listed as terrorist by only one or few countries, while other countries do not support such designation.
• Today the words terrorists are still used without any concensus whatsoever. Sometimes countries list organizations on different soil as terrorist as a gesture of good will to another country as to many governments economic ties are still more important than morals, or human rights for that matter. Examples sometimes described by scholars are the designation of the PKK as a terrorist organization by several western nations, as well as the armed underground in the northwest province of China (I forget the name), both fighting for independence. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that there's something wrong with dubbing one group of independence organizations terrorists, while at the same time dubbing another group of independence organizations as freedom fighters.

So I'd say:

• Don't change anything about WP:TERRORIST, it would only lead to prolonged discussions and constant revert warring by opinionated and patriotic users. Instead stick with has been designated as a terrorist organization when describing a group, or in case of a single person, is wanted for terrorism charges by ___.
• If the words terrorist attack or terrorists are still to be used in an article, then make sure that it's about an operation which targeted civilians explicitly. Often military operations/battles or acts of sabotage are completely legal under the geneva conventions, because its carried out against military or police forces and not civilians. Yet, some governments, as well as an opinionated set of scholars will do their best to dub these perpetrators as terrorists anyway. Grey Fox (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox, the current guideline is lopsided and crude enough that it *is* leading to prolonged discussions and edit wars all over the place. The subject is emotional enough that it's probably inevitable to begin with, but that's not a reason not to change the guideline to something more nuanced and properly reflective of the use of the term "terrorist" in the English language. Ray (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that if you were to declare Al-Qaeda terrorist not a soul would protest. It is the declaration of organizations like Hezbollah (seen as a resistance movement by many), PKK, and some separatist organizations as terrorist that would be controversial.VR _talk 16:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some new proposed wording on terrorist, extremist, freedom fighter, etc.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist," and "freedom fighter," as applied to individuals and organizations, usually carry an implicit viewpoint. These words are frequently non-neutral, and so they should not be used as labels in the narrative voice of the article, barring clear consensus to the contrary. Similarly, caution should be used when describing particular actions or doctrines as "terrorist," preferably restricting the label to attacks against purely civilian targets.

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. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided.

I have altered the wording to distinguish between the use of "terrorist" to describe particular people, as opposed to particular actions, the former being much more likely to arouse controversy than the latter. As per my position in our rather exhaustive discussion above, I have also moved us away from direct contradiction with the opening paragraph of this guideline by replacing the word never with a qualifier which allows for cases of groups universally acknowledge to be terrorist, among others. Some other stylistic cleanups as well. Floor's open. Comments? Thoughts? Ray (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not find this an improvement over the current wording. Nor for that matter is it an improvement over your last version. why do you not include "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms? What does "barring clear consensus to the contrary." mean? "as "terrorist," preferably restricting the label to attacks against purely civilian targets." This is a definition and one that you are making up and it would include the dropping of the Atomic bombs and many of the targets in shock and awe were civilian (which had a dual usage). Also what about the Avala TV Tower in Serbia that were targeted by NATO? --PBS (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS, I remind you, once again, to remain civil and assume good faith. Engaging in silly rhetorical accusations that I am "making stuff up" is not constructive. Neither is spamming the discussion with random controversial examples. Ray (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What have I said that is not civil? Where have I ever assumed that what you are doing is not done in good faith? Where have you ever reminded me before to "remain civil and assume good faith"? --PBS (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help clarify the position if you would answer the questions I have posed because the devil is always in the detail and controversial examples help to show up problems with particular formulations. Also if it is not a role your own definition then where does the definition come from and what makes it superior to all the other definitions that exist? --PBS (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article: “Sorts of terms to avoid” can be read: “Words and expressions should be avoided if they 1. are ambiguous, ……. “ I agree with this , but is not ambiguous the word “binary” ? ... because it links to the: a) binary number system, which can somewhere ore sometimes use values of numbers, b) binary coding system, which uses numbers as simply (represent able) coding characters, (usually 0 and 1) as commands for controlling a computer-system and which are not treated mathematically, but are used (for setting in the program for example, or manually per a keyboard) as they are, and the computer-system knows, the in advance in the system implemented meaning of them. Would somebody have the kindness, please, and tell me his opinion to this long lasting problem? Klubera 23:45:, 17. December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.136.159.222 (talk)

Moving the text and archiving the discussion

See WT:Controversial_articles#Terrorist, and please respond there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 5 for previous discussion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

Would anyone object to renaming this article guideline to "Word usage to avoid" (or something similar)? It seems to be far more accurate. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you point. My main hesitation is that this is a long-standing guideline with a long-standing name. Wikipedia guidelines tend to have catchy but not entirely accurate names like this. One of Wikipedia's best policies is WP:IAR, but the title is very inaccurate and misleading, and the policy is often misapplied as a consequence. Then we have WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL: why name style guidelines after animals? Of course, all I am saying here is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Geometry guy 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Progressive

Can we take a look at the word "progressive" under words with multiple meanings? I'm increasingly seeing the word thrown around articles; it seems to be a reincarnation of a late 19th century term, mainly meant to avoid the word "liberal" in the American sense.

However, there are two large problems with this: 1) the word progressive has another meaning: it can be "intending to make progress" - a term that is clearly different than liberal, unless we're operating under the non-neutral assumption that the two are necessarily the same. 2) the word is still unknown by a large percentage of the population that does not closely follow politics.

Take for example, the following sentence:

• XXX is a PAC based in Texas with an emphasis on progressive politics.

Sadly, I've seen cases like the above; many, if not most people would not know the above was intended to mean left-of-center politics.

In all, I understand the desire by many liberals/progressives/left-wingers/whatever to be called by the new term; but until it gains broad acceptance, and is understood in most circumstances to mean a political leaning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that "progressive" in the American sense is used to avoid the word "Liberal" (currently is see as a negative attribute). Liberal in the United States does not have the same meaning as it does in, for example, Europe. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, at least at face value. Progressive/Progressivism is commonly cited within politics as a political movement. While associated with liberalism, it is not analogous. Only if the term is used as a substitute for liberal should it be avoided.96.241.233.55 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, everyone will then claim it's not a substitute for liberal, because there is some very subtle difference between the two ("I'm not a liberal, I'm a progressive!"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think to suggest it is analogous is based on a common misunderatanding of politics in people who believe 'left wing' and liberal is the same which is obviously not the case. The word progressive generally refers to politics that are modern and forward thinking, which is usually found, though not exclusively, among left wing politics. Ultimately the term is a subjective opinion and should only be used as such. --neon white talk 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)--neon white talk 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds to me like an example of "words that label". Ambiguous political labels like "progressive", "liberal" or "conservative" should not be applied unless their meaning is clear from the context or their use is attributed. It is usually better to show the reader that a person or institution is liberal than tell them. Geometry guy 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Going by the discussion above, I agree with Geometry guy's suggestion to "show not tell". Seems like these terms leave plenty of room for misunderstanding. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Try telling that to people who insist on inserting "liberal" and "conservative" into the first sentence of articles on contemporary political commentators. I've actually tried to add a section to this article on the use of these words, but I couldn't figure out a good wording for it, so I didn't commit anything to the article. Warren -talk- 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Use reliable sources and not your own opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to the "Death and dying" section

There is a dispute on the Talk:WrestleCrap page about whether deceased people should be referred to as "the late". I think it is inappropriate and a good argument has been put forward about a term like this becoming dated. Are there any opinions here? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the phrase does indeed smack of recentism, and probably should be avoided. After all, we hope our prose will be around for a long time. Ray (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the opinion above that the use of "the late" is inappropriate and seems recentist. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Here we are WP:DATED addresses this topic. No need to make another edit to poor WP:WTA. Ray (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

sport and boast

Is it worth introducing a caveat against terms such as sport and boast when what is really meant is have? (As in The palace boasted five hundred rooms, The book sported a colour illustration on its jacket.) They strike me as not terribly encyclopedic and distracting. Barnabypage (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully. Irish articles are full of "the towns boasts a rich history" - I change them on sight! Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past (before WP) this might have been a WTA issue, but it isn't now. The words no longer carry any meaning, because they have been overused. They are unencyclopedic because they are bad prose. Change them on sight for that reason, and I doubt anyone will contradict you. Geometry guy 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - and I'm glad to realise that I am not just a curmudgeonly ex-copy editor. (Or, if I am, I'm not alone in that state.) Barnabypage (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to claim "section"

I made a major edit to the claim section. I did this because of this revert at Astrology, where my edit simply inserted the words "are claimed to":

"positions of celestial bodies and related details are claimed to aid in understanding.."

An apparently partisan editor reverted this edit (in the diff), and in comment used WTA#Claim as a basis. Another editor restored my change, and the partisan editor reverted it again, this time inserting the words "knowledge about":

"in which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in understanding,"

Note that the Arbcom has stated that certain topics can be defined as pseudoscience, of varying degree. (See WP:PSCI). Astrology is listed in the policy FAQ under the second degree, "generally considered pseudoscience." I don't think adding "claim" is controversial, so I was forced to remedy the awfully written policy on "claim." IIRC, I had done this exact thing years ago, but it was reverted. I think cases like these make it clear that the policy as written was wrong or misleading. It gave undue weight to nonsensically trivial and obvious misuses of "claim" and gave little intelligence to its necessary usage to describe and define attribution of a concept to a particular person or group. Astrologists may "state" that "knowledge of" Alpha Centauri's hermeneutic harmonic spectrum can be used to cure the flu, but others would probably claim otherwise. -Stevertigo 23:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Writing about pseudoscience in a smooth way is a difficult problem. You could go with something like "Astrologists believe...", or "This section discusses the beliefs held by astrologists" or something like that to avoid claiming astrology as fact (at the risk of introducing weasel words). Dcoetzee 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I, the "apparently partisan editor," have further revised the section so that it's clearer and not patronizing. Kudos to any fourth grader who knows what an appeal to fallacy is, but I didn't see how either that or loaded question is very relevant to the fact that "claim" can be a loaded word, especially when it is juxtaposed with stronger-sounding verbs (and corresponding nouns). My revision gets to this point, which is reiterated in the long-standing sentence, "Do not use 'claim' for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit." Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist section (again)

There was a discussion over at WP:Controversial articles, I left messages on the talk pages of many of the people who had spoken up in the terrorist thread, the vote was unanimous to move the section on terrorism over there, that was 3 weeks ago. GreyFox just moved the terrorism section over here without discussion. Does anyone support this now? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's now usually how it works Dank55. The section about terrorist/extremist/freedom fighter has been here since about 2003. You've moved it even though the last two discussions did not archive any concensus and didn't resolve anything. You didn't leave any message on my talk page about the move so I doubt everyone else did. Grey Fox (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware you're in favor, I'm trying to find someone else who is. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but then I'd also like to find someone else who is in favor of moving the section to "Controversial articles". I've only seen you post a message there which had no replies. Grey Fox (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole thread further down the page, which you have commented on, so I presume you have read it. Anyway, you have hereby found someone else who was and is in favor of leaving the section out of WTA. Geometry guy 11:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The "vote" was not unanimous. See my comment a comment posted to Dan's talk page and my follow up comment in Wikipedia_talk:Controversial articles#Words to avoid "It seems to me better to include "Words with controversial meanings" in Wikipedia:Words to avoid not here. ... I think the status quo should be maintained unless there is a consensus to move [to Controversial articles] and there is no indication to me that there is. --PBS (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)". I was not willing to edit war over it but I do think it is better in "Words to avoid" than in "Controversial articles" because if I was looking for guidance over a word I would look in "Words to avoid" rather than "Controversial articles" for such guidance. --PBS (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very much in favor of Dank's move, as to characterize this particular debate (which centers around a rather deep and intractable discussion about NPOV) as a "style" issue is inappropriate. Dank did indeed leave notices around the New Year when I was travelling, and I did not object then, nor do I object now. The last two discussions centered, so far as I can see, around whether the section was appropriate at all, and whether its wording should be dramatically pared, or eliminated altogether. They did not focus on where the guideline should reside, and this remains the first major discussion surrounding that point. Ray (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One other point if it is to be move between articles please make sure that the shortcuts are kept up to date with the moves. (WP:TERRORIST WP:EXTREMIST) --PBS (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Philip, I thought you were initially in favor of keeping TERRORIST at WORDS, then read my arguments and switched your position to at least neutral. I have two questions for you: did you read my data at Wikipedia_talk:Controversial articles on how all other conversation has dried up over the last two years during the months that people are pursuing "bad guy" threads here at WORDS, and how are we going to keep discussion of abortion, political change, global warming, and other words with disputed definitions off of this page if we allow this page to cover terrorism? Wouldn't controversial definitions be better at WP:Controversial articles? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I had read your comments but they did not change my mind. I was not in favour, but as no one else had objected I was not going to edit war over it. As you and I had been butting heads over a different unrelated issue, I thought it diplomatic to give way to you on this. However now that a third party has expressed concern with the move, I think you should move it back until there is an active consensus to move it to your preferred solution. --PBS (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed definitions is not the same. To use your example abortion, political change, global warming are not word or phrases that are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. "Far left" is a neutral political description (to which one may object that the application is incorrect), but "Loony left" is pejorative. Most people do not need to be told that "Loony left" is pejorative so we do not need to include it here--PBS (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dank55, I don't remember a message in my talk page, nor does the edit summary show any message from you, and I had been a heavy participant on this discussion, both recently and as way back as 2006, not to mention anon accounts in 2003-2005. Seems to me your effort conveniently forgot to include at least two people who were known to either oppose or are lukewarm to the idea, but included those who supported it. Seems like canvassing to me, not an RfC (which BTW, was not called - so any "consensus" is suspect).

These are words to avoid, period. NPOV requires it. That it should also be addressed here is a matter of logic.

Since this has been a long-standing part of WTA, and there is no consensus that it be removed, WTA should have a mention of the move in the article, kinda like WP:SUMMARY in the article space, with WP:TERRORIST WP:EXTREMIST still redirecting to WTA, and new redirects WP:GFCATERRORIST WP:GFCAEXTREMISTWP:CONTROTERROR and WP:CONTROEXTREME for controversy. This is a common sense compromise: but such as a radical move, specially without consideration to redirects was done rather hastily, what is the haste? --Cerejota (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As Dank's edit stood for nearly 2 weeks, it is now the status quo, and it would be inappropriate to make a change while an active discussion including editors opposed to the proposed change is ongoing. Ray (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Five years trumps two weeks anytime. This is sheer logic and common sense. --Cerejota (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks is nothing really, especially since a number of users were not informed of the move at all. The notion of terrorist/freedom fighter has stood on Words to Avoid for 5 years, and the initial move went without concensus, so it should just stay where it was. Grey Fox (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dank55 I noticed you called back a couple of users with the message grey fox says he doesn't have any evidence that I checked with anyone involved in the discussion when I moved it to WP:Controversial articles (presumably because he didn't bother to look. My comments here are meant as good faith so I find the way you phrase it rather misplaced. As for you messaging other users, I did not receive any message, and I've now messaged three other users who had not received messages either, so I have every reason to believe that you didn't message "everybody involved".

Going back to the actual discussion, I generally oppose such a move because I believe that such a move no longer prohibits users from using the phrases terrorist or freedom fighter without quotation, which I believe is essential for a neutral encyclopedia because there is no official defenition of terrorism or freedom fighters. Grey Fox (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this removal as well. We're at a point now where it's clear there isn't a consensus to remove this text, so the text should remain -- as it has for years. Warren -talk- 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean, a text that was more or less stable for 5 years gets removed for two weeks, and we endose the removal? Nope. Besides, the content at WP:GFCA is intact. I am for inclusion rather than removal of either.--Cerejota (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Warren meant that he believes the text should stay on this page. Grey Fox (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that. Please read what I said... thanks. Warren -talk- 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the arguments, I am still convinced there is a WTA need for "terrorist/extremist/freedom figther" under certain circumstances, and then a need to address controversial articles. For example, and formulation I have been using and trying to support is that of saying "Organization X is considered a terrorist organization by Y and Z" linking to List of designated terrorist organizations instead of the completely non-neutral: "Organization X is a terrorist organization". That is clearly material for WP:GFCA. But when describing an action or person as a "terrorist", it is a WP:WTA issue: even people who mastermind terrorist attacks cannot be neutrally described as "terrorist" without controversy. Of course, where there is no controversy, as has been the case with 2008 Mumbai attacks, WP:IAR applies, but for example in Northern Irealand articles this designation is highly controversial, and can be served by a WTA condition. This is why it needs to be addressed in both guidelines, and addressed in a separate fashion. --Cerejota (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians for political purposes are the highest examples of terrorism indeed, but still the term is only a recent invention, mostly populized after 9/11, and rarely used before the end of WWII. There still doesn't seem to be a historic concensus if the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were aimed at civilians and killed 220,000 of them, was an act of state terror or not. This is a clear example how there is no defenition of terrorism, and they are only a matter of opinion. A few years back the UN did define terrorism, albeit broadly, but since this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia it should not just serve as a mouthpiece for the UN.

The Mumbai attacks you mentioned are a good example. Right now everybody is still outraged over the attacks because they were so recent. The word terrorist is used everywhere in the article (although probably with lots of edit warring). In the future however perception might possibly change. I'll give you an example, according to human rights watch thousands of people were killed in Kashmir, and another thousands have possibly been forcefully disappeared[9] all by Indian troops. In the future the attacks in mumbai might be shown next to these casualty figures and turn out to only be a small percentage of the overall casualties in the Indian-Pakistani war. In contrast, the Kosovo Liberation Army had killed hundreds of Serbian civilians (according to human rights watch). Yugoslavia had dubbed them a terrorist organization, but because of the deaths of thousands of Kosovar civilians at the hands of Yugoslav forces, the Kosovo Liberation Army become known as a legitimate resistance movement, eventually greeted by US troops, and their leaders now forming the government of Kosovo. None of the above covers any of my personal opinion, it's just an example of how much the phrase terrorism is used for political purposes. As the famous phrase tells, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Grey Fox (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The section should remain. This is a guideline of words to avoid, and terrorist is for sure a word to avoid. The section isn't particularly on point, well written, or insightful, but neither is the entire guideline page. It's something of a hodgepodge, and it seems that a number of people have been adding words to the list for sport or based on single incidents / articles. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is "terrorist" a word to avoid? Its misuse is a NPOV issue, not a style issue. The guideline should appear somewhere, but why here? Geometry guy 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a word, and it's to be avoided as a general rule for the reasons indicated here. It has many different meanings and it's generally an epithet or judgment rather than a descriptive factual term that clarifies who a person or an organization is. Many of the words are on the list because they tend to create POV - see the section on praise, expose, deny, words that introduce bias, etc. Yet it's not a single POV issue - Wikipedia edit warriors don't line up as pro-terrorists versus anti-terrorists. The problem is the word itself. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. GreyFox thinks I might have done something improper (canvassing), so I'll have my say and then leave this for other folks to sort out. I don't think "canvassing" is a good description, ever, when no one has spoken up in opposition. I made a suggestion on this page, and I also asked people I had recently talked with who were aware of the issue what they thought, I heard no objections (PBS shifted to neutral ... in the interest of being a good Wikipedian, I understand, but he still shifted to neutral when the question was asked), I moved the section, I heard no objections for 3 weeks.

Now for the substance. Maybe I've missed it, but has anyone, ever, given a reason why only words related to terrorism, martyrdom, etc. should be mentioned on this page, and not other contentious words or phrases? Shouldn't "abortionist", "gay agenda", and "the Obama recession" also be avoided? (I hear that last one is catchy with Rush Limbaugh fans.) It doesn't matter that the word "terrorist" has been here for years; that means we've done it wrong for years. Ask any of the people who have worked on style guidelines over the last year; most of the style guidelines have had problems which have only been resolved within the last year, it's not unusual. And in this case, we have data. Repeating what I said at WT:Controversial articles: Check out the WT:Words to avoid archives: compare what people talked about from Jan-May 2007 (50 different registered users discussing a wide variety of topics relevant to the guideline) vs. Jun-Dec 2007 (not much besides heretics, martyrs, apostates, freedom fighters, apartheid, and terrorists) vs. Jan-Aug 2008 (around 60 registered accounts discussing a wide variety of topics relevant to the guideline) vs. Sept-Dec 2008 (not much besides terrorists, martyrs, concentration camps). What you'll see is that that talk page tends to be lively and useful for the intended and important purpose (people at GAN and GAR have insisted that it stay in the WP:WIAGA criteria, with good reason), up until the time that there's vigorous discussion on "bad guy" topics, and then everyone else stops watchlisting and goes away (despite efforts by G-Guy and myself to get people interested in new topics). In contrast to all the "bad-guy" discussions, I don't see any bad guys here :) But inadvertently, we've allowed a very important guideline talk page to get hijacked for single-purpose advocacy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who said you were canvassing, that was User:Cerejota. You did possibly do something wrong though. You only messaged a couple of users, possibly those who would likely agree on such a move to achieve concensus, which is a fake concensus. At the same time you stated in the edits; "feel free to revert" so I consider it good faith.

I have to disagree with "It doesn't matter that the word "terrorist" has been here for years; that means we've done it wrong for years.". I've seen this guideline preventing long and annoying discussions from pov-pushers who are desperetely trying to label someone he or she very much likes or dislikes. It's important to avoid labeling people that way because all of these terms are a matter of opinion, such as good guy or bad guy, except they are most-often related to ongoing armed conflicts.

Since english wikipedia users origin from all over the world, including many countries involved with armed conflicts (where the majority of the worlds population live too), this type of labeling is extra-sensetive. If we allow users to label people that way it would lead to a large amount of unnecessary discussion, edit warring, non-neutral articles and in the end certainly not improve the quality of wikipedia. Grey Fox (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see an innate reason why these words should be avoided. There may be a reason in a particular article why one word or another should not be applied to a specific person. But that would depend entirely on the context of the article. These are not recently invented words. They have been long in general use in a descriptive rather than a pejorative sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It only makes sense to add words here if the issue of their use comes up frequently on Wikipedia, if a broad consensus among editors has developed that the word should be avoided, and if the issue is not so blindingly obvious that editors can rest on more fundamental Wikipedia policies like NPOV. Whether or not to call different people and issues terrorists in articles has generated countless debates, edit wars, RFCs, ANI reports, blocks, bans, and some arbitration cases / requests. In nearly all of these cases the outcome is that "terrorism" - related words should not be used, except to point out that a person or group is on an official list, or to report that people have opined / alleged that someone is a terrorist if weight can be established and BLP violations avoided via multiple significant reliable sources or important commentators relevant to the issue. It is a problem with the word - we can easily find sources to find what actions a person has taken. The debate is generally over whether or not to throw in the word "terrorist" to characterize those actions, so the word does not add any additional explanatory clarity, just a value judgment. This issue was acerbated by the recent US presidential election, when one of the candidates tried to score points by painting the other as soft / friendly with terrorism and in the process called a bunch of people terrorists. It's an important thing to resolve. If people started calling every pro-gay thing on the encyclopedia part of an "xxxx agenda", it would make sense to put that here. If not, there's no point. I don't think Controversial Articles is the right place for terrorism or any of these other word choice issues. The point of the section here on "terrorist" is to caution people against using the word, explain why, and suggest alternatives. As such, it fits here in a list of words that, similarly, should be avoided. The other guideline page is about a broader and different subject, how to deal with editing controversial articles, how to describe the controversy, and how editors should get along in the process. Not all articles in which the word "terrorist" might be used are about controversial subjects, and for sure controversies over the word "terrorist" are an infinitesimal subset of all the controversial articles. It also weakens the effect by putting it in a place where it doesn't really belong. This article is about things not to do. That article assumes there are two or more sides, and suggests how they should be balanced. Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that out in the trenches of article editing, this part of the guideline is very effective in dealing with new arrivals who want to add the word "terrorist" to articles about subjects they do not like. Without the guideline these occasional melt-downs would be a lot worse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What is not a good compromise is what is having this content in two places. That is a recipe for real confusion when one gets changed and the other does not. --PBS (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if it were moved we would have to leave the section in as a link because of the countless pages currently linking to it. Really, there is a considerable threshold to overcome before it is worth re-sectioning policy and guideline pages, and I really doubt this one is going to gain consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the links. Since, judging by the amount of discussion this section receives, it seems to be the only one that editors give a fuck about, I suggest renaming this guideline to "'Terrorist' and other words to avoid", taking it out of the Manual of Style, and removing it from the GA criteria. Geometry guy 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be "spun off" into its own article/essay - whatever it is? Most of the Words to avoid article is good advice and has nothing to do with marginalizing specific words. There have been very similar arguments over the use of the word dictator as well as communist, pertaining to particular individuals, but but these words are not on the list. Surely the worry about terrorist/terrorism etc. have to do with specific articles and not of general concern enough for a place in words to avoid. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any debates over the word communist since usually communists proudly describe themselves that way), I did over the word dictator. This causes a lot less problems than the word terrorist though, because only leaders can be named dictators, not their subordinates. What many biased editors do is go through the List of designated terrorist organizations, and if their countries opponent is listed there, they will attempt to name all their members simply "terrorists" on war pages, even though the full list is often contradictory, and contains groups only added as an attempt to freeze their assets from fund-raising within the country and for friendly relations with other countries.

As a result war pages, covering whatever conflict within the past 50yrs that had thousands of casualties, are no longer neutral. For example, a starting article is Turkey–Kurdistan_Workers_Party_conflict. I remember everywhere over the page texts were used such as "on december 21 turkish forces killed 25 terrorists". I see this is not longer the case, but without this guideline, what prevents it from remaining the old way?

To make things more confusing, the US listed part of Iran's army as a terrorist organization, and in reply, Iran has listed the CIA and the US Army as a terrorist organization. Grey Fox (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you are objecting to the use of the word "terrorist" as an adjective, in this case to describe an organization. I would be inclined to agree. But as an adjective, the word "terrorist" to describe an event is relatively uncontroversial. Mass murder specifically targeted at civilians to incite fear is widely regarded as a terrorist act, and indeed that is the main definition of terrorism. When used in this sense, it is usually readily supported by reliable secondary sources. So how is this a word to avoid? Geometry guy 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What if the motive of the attacks was not to terrorise? For example the big City of London bombings (Baltic Exchange bombing and 1993 Bishopsgate bombing) by the IRA which were intended to force the UK insurance industry to persuade the UK government to recognise that these were acts of war? Warrenpoint ambush and 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, USS Cole bombing were all called terrorist attacks in the media of the time, but even if one can agree on those what about attacks where the target is the security forces but where there is collateral damage eg King David Hotel bombing, or Guildford pub bombings? What about the 10 Downing Street mortar attack? What about the killing of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment in and out of uniform, was it only the latter that was a terrorist attack? What about the shooting of an unarmed English policeman killed trying to apprehend IRA members of an ASU? As always the devil is in the detail! --PBS (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There's an infobox on "terrorist attacks" and I sometimes use it. This guideline however doesn't cover acts of terrorism, but terrorists. Whether an attack is an act of terror or not also often leads to needless edit warring and hurted feelings. Many patriotic users want to brand attacks on security forces as a "terrorist attack". Newspapers most of the time avoid that, and so do I. I limit myself to attacks that only targets civilians, but even then there's not always a historic concensus, such as city bombing during WWII.

I also sometimes wrote headers on people wanted for terrorism, and added something like ".. is wanted on charges of terrorism by ..". I'm against ".. is a terrorist", and this guideline is exactly what prevents users from using such phrases. Does that somehow represent what we all think? No. For example, I support my nations troops in Afghanistan. When one of them gets killed I feel anger or sadness. Yet when editing on wikipedia I still avoid the term "terrorist" or "act of terrorism" simply because this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. We should let readers draw their own conclusions without having to use pejorative terms. Grey Fox (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you are referring to "terrorist" as a noun. I agree this is a word to avoid, because it is a label. I would be happy if it were added as an example in the section "Words that label". Geometry guy 00:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"usually communists proudly describe themselves that way" - This appears POV to me. What is defined as "controversial depends on what articles you frequent. The words communist and dictator in Fidel Castro is the result of long wars and finally immaculate sourcing. Same with Che Guevara. In fact, even the article communism is tagged as "neutrality disputed". —Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I dare you to try to stick communist into Che Guevara. He "was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, politician, author, physician, military theorist, and guerrilla leader. After death, his stylized image became a ubiquitous countercultural symbol worldwide." But not a communist. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're true on that one, but still it's different. Communist is not a pejorative term per se, terrorist is. I'm not familiar with Che Guevara, but marxism is not the same as communism, and unless he called himself a communist, I understand he should not be referred to as such. Grey Fox (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Different only in that the editors of that page consider "Communist" pejorative and will not allow it to be applied to Che. There was an edit war on Fidel Castro over "Communist" and there it was eventually allowed. If anything, Castro was less of a standard Communist than Che. I think how you regard words like "Communist" depends on your age group, nationality, and political stance. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stay focused on where this section should go rather than discuss its contents, that can be done once its location is settled. --PBS (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we take this one to a formal RFC. Dank55 can write up a statement (probably just copy/pasting from what he has above), and the rest of us could write our own statements, and see what other people have to say. I don't find myself amenable to any of the arguments that have been raised by people supporting keeping such a guideline in WP:WTA, and I gather from the tone that those opposed to my point of view aren't particularly amenable to the points that Dank and GeometryGuy have raised, either, so I think some outside opinions would be fruitful, as would a slightly more structured discussion. Thoughts? Ray (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An RfC would seem sensible. I'm really busy for the next two weeks or so. I think my views are fairly clear, and I will attempt to adapt and respond to the views of the wider community. Geometry guy 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On the actual topic, I must say that people are talking past each other: we all agree that edit warring is bad, that the intent of WTA and GFCA is to minimize needless edit warring. From this basis of agreement, differences emerge - I for one think that rather than disagreements, there are differences of stress, and even of linguistic consideration: this section has elements that belongs in WTA (people talk a lot about "terrorist", but what about "freedom fighter"? Lets not throw the baby with the bath water!), and elements in GFCA (how to approach situtations were there is controversy around how to describe combatants from either side).

On the specific of "terrorist" people use recent examples that are, according to them, "uncontroversial" usage of "terrorist". But lets go back in history: was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism? Was Tarring and feathering by colonials of tax men a terrorist action? Yes! DEFINITELY! However, we do not use the term for them (besides the term not existing then) because the question of terrorism gets lost in the wider historical narrative of the war for independence of what went on to be an established nation. The same can be said of any use of terrorism: sometimes it is not wise to call a spade a spade, not just because it compromises NPOV (althought that is a much more important reason than how some casually and even burocratically dismiss it, as it is WP:5P-level policy) but also because it reduces edit warring, a behavorial reason fully within the scope of both WTA and GFCA. What we are failing to do here is understand that letting the facts speak for themselves can be done in ways that do not mean edit wars over a single word: if by avoiding the use of the word "terrorist" we can create a good article, that describes actions that any reasonable reader will see as terrorism, that would be preferable to having an endless, disruptive, and WP:POINTy edit warring for simply insisting in calling a spade, a spade. Its about common sense and accumulated experience of years of editing under sometimes very nasty conditions - created in part by a failure of the community to address, in a cold and neutral manner the goals of an encyclopedia.

Some seem to forget that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter is not a banal platitude, but a term that specifically emerged during The Troubles where the significant political influence of Nationalist Irish in the USA led to an uncomfortable situation regarding political speech between two allies (the USA and the UK). Politicians in the USA couldn't call the IRA "terrorist" and in some cases had to call them "freedom figthers", whereas in the UK the inverse situation happened, even when actions on the part of the IRA weren't terrorist (such as self-defense or political protests). The existence of the formulation in WTA has kept those articles from edit warring over the term "terrorist". Another relevant example is that of Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, who masterminded the bombing of a civilian aircraft - a terrorist action by any measure, and called "terrorist" by so many reliable sources to the point that Wikipedia calls it a "terrorist attack" - yet we call him "anti-Castro operative", a neutral description (if somewhat incorrect: he is more like "anti-Cuban Communist State", than "anti-Castro"). I fully agree that we would be failing our mission of an NPOV encyclopedia if we called a terrorist, but since we live in a world where one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter - we must make this desicion systemic, rather than one made on an article by article basis, or risk the neutrality of the encyclopedia by allowing usage to be determined by who can meatpuppet the most - again behavior and incentives for bad behavior. We remove terrorist from WTA, and there will be a shitstorm of puppetry and edit warring, followed by the subsequent bias and non-neutrality, which results in less good articles, which shoudl be our sole goal (amen!).

On how to proceed, the RFC is definitely the way to go (and I already said that failure to RFC an obviously controversial debate - as the analisys form Dank shows - is why this move had to be reverted). I do worry that comments like calling editors "SPAs" (as if there is anyone who is a policy SPA!!!) and specially Dank'sWP:OWNy comment But inadvertently, we've allowed a very important guideline talk page to get hijacked for single-purpose advocacy. casts a shadow on the good faith of Dank's failure to notify certain editors of his move (for example, possibly excluding those he considers SPA's - a highly subjective call). A well-called RfC will remove any lingering suspicions on this intent, and probably decide the issue for at least a while, so it should be done. The issue is not to rush - the damn thing has been there for five years, and that is for a reason.--Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the section until the argument is resolved. By the way, terrorist is NOT a word to avoid. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise agree. There are many better places to discuss terrorism as a neutrality issue than a style guideline. As a compromise, I have suggested mentioning "terrorist" it under "words that label", as although it is not a word to avoid, it can easily be misapplied, and that is a style issue. Geometry guy 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. It is a word to avoid; it is rarely strictly applied in the English-language media and as that is our main source of "verifiability" using the word will simply result in its perjoritive and loaded propagandistic usage being employed against largely non-western people. There simply ISN'T any agreed definition of the word and where it appears it is overwhelmingly applied to people "we don't like". Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This style guideline Wikipedia:Words to avoid is not about words applied to people "we don't like". Have you read it? That is not the subject of this style guideline. We may describe people we don't like as dirty people, idiotic people, selfish people, stupid people etc. Should these words be added? (We can use reliable source guideline as to when to apply a word and not our own personal reactions.) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Object Section should stay. WTA YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Geometry guy 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I object removal also, I've already given a lot of arguments above on why I find this guideline essential for any encyclopedia. Grey Fox (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which other encyclopedias do you find this guideline essential for? Geometry guy 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Every major encyclopedia. I see them all almost always avoiding such terms. Grey Fox (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you might list a few. Because, a quick google check confirms that neither Encarta ([10], [11]), nor Britannica ([12], [13]) have any objections to calling terrorism terrorism. Ray (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Those examples actually don't call anyone a terrorist, but only mention acts of terror. You've also picked the least controversial examples. I'll give you an example that might help you understand the neutrality problems regarding these phrases. You're from the States right? There's those who consider the 18th century US insurgency against Britain terrorist activities, and therefore George Washington a terrorist. "The British called George Washington a terrorist.""George+Washington"+terrorist&lr=&as_brr=3&hl=nl. Though not used much, because back then those terms weren't used a lot, today many similar wars for independence take place, and such slangs are thrown around by leaders constantly. Grey Fox (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to note that the existence of uncontroversial examples, so to speak, renders the current wording of our "guideline" contrary to the uncontroversial and common usage of the English language, and a prime example of censorship. As to the charge that the examples provided don't call anybody a terrorist, that is quite beside the point, and a vacuous distinction. Is there a difference between calling somebody a "perpetrator of terrorist acts" and a "terrorist?" The current "guideline" bans the use of the term terrorist, making no distinction between applying to a person or an action, in any case. Ray (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It does. We've been over that already. There's an infobox too called "terrorist attack" and it's usage is welcomed. There is also indeed a difference between the two. Someone who has commited an act of terror does not have to remain a terrorist for his entire life. Just like someone isn't a thief for the rest of his life if he stole a candybar at the age of 18. A terrorist attack is also mostly carried out by a group and not just a single person, while the majority of group members may not have agreed upon the act. Still some hold them guilty just by association. The guideline limits itself only to the usage of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", not acts of terror. Grey Fox (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I've restored the section. Please establish consensus before making such major changes to these guidelines. I do not see any such consensus here, and it is a very important matter that affects a fair number of articles. Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to note the futility of it all. It is clear, judging from the number of electrons that have been spilled on this subject, that this "guideline" doesn't enjoy anything close to consensus community support, and now people are selectively picking which "consensus" to revert to. A rational approach for a "guideline" this far from the consensus, whose principal wording (the first two paragraphs, to be precise) dates to a period of low activity last year, would be removal, period, pending a more formal process and something genuinely approaching community approval. However, I suspect it is far more likely that we're going to discuss ourselves into exhaustion yet again. Should that happen, I would think a guideline written by such a process is as fine a candidate for WP:IAR as I've yet encountered, and I plan to implement that philosophy on such articles in its scope as I may happen to edit. Ray (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The text was not added last summer it was added 4 May 2007 and edits that month were not less than the months surrounding it. I also commented on the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid/Archive03#Terrorism on the 2 May stating my intent and there was no reply of any sort (silence etc, etc)) --PBS (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So User:RayAYang would you describe Nelson Mandela as a former terrorist in the lead of his article as there are lots of reliable sources that called him one? What about Michael Collins (Irish leader) was he a terrorist or a freedom fighter? --PBS (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, why would anyone want to describe these two as terrorist or freedom fighter? If they did, why would that mean "terrorist" was a word to avoid? Geometry guy 10:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the use of the term terrorist (or freedom fighter) in the passive narrative "implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt [that] moral viewpoint". --PBS (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I would just regard those editors as POV pushers and revert. We have a major plank of policy called WP:NPOV which deals with the issue of point of view pushing. In contrast the word "terrorist" has a perfectly useful dictionary definition. Its misuse can easily be covered an example of "words that label". What place do questions of "moral judgment" have in a style guideline? Geometry guy 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that most people who use the term terrorist in the passive narrative voice do not consider its use as a breach of NPOV so we need an explanation as to why it is POV pushing and part of that is the moral judgement. By the logic of your argument we could strip out the section "Words that may advance a point of view" as they are covered by WP:NPOV. The section on claim states "The word "claim" does not always carry opinion, but it can be misused because it often suggests that a speaker is not being truthful." Yet that is not what the OED says "'Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’. (F. Hall.)" So where does the Wikipedia claimassertion that "it often suggests that a speaker is not being truthful" come from? --PBS (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One or two editors have put forward the case that there is five year consensus for this paragraph. I went back through the edit history over the last five years and found: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18].

In all of these cases except one, we don't have a guideline at all, but a discussion of "Arguments for use" and "Arguments against use". It is ridiculous to suggest removing this paragraph is a major change contrary to 5 years consensus. Does anyone want to restore the version that existed for most of these 5 years? It was crap. Indeed most of this guideline was crap until I cut 25K off it. Nobody complained about that "major change". Please stop terrorizing this style guideline. Geometry guy 10:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly no consensus for 'keeping this section. Why lay editing restrictions upon editors, when there is no consensus for keeping them? Rmv'ing section, as claims of "no consensus to remove" have no more weight than "no consensus to keep".Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. I am restoring a second and final time but will not edit war. If you or anyone removes this again without consensus, this becomes a behavioral matter for WP:AN/I. Please continue the discussion and do not disrupt policy and guideline pages. You need consensus to make these kinds of changes. Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were as clear cut as that, you would be right. But it isn't. The long-standing section on terrorism was non-commital (and essentially useless). The version you regard as consensus was introduced relatively recently, and has been the subject of frequent disagreement. Furthermore there was not even an attempt to establish consensus for this edit, which restored the disputed section over three weeks after it was moved (with discussion) to another guideline. So who decides? You? Geometry guy 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit is the "R" of BRD and does not need consensus. We all decide after reasoned debate. Meanwhile, like any guideline this one should remain stable unless and until there is consensus for changing it. Edit warring changes into a guideline page in the middle of a discussion about it is clearly wrong. The section has been in the article for a considerable time, certainly all or most of 2008. Reformulating, moving, and deleting it are three separate proposals that do not add up to to any consensus to stop avoiding words related to "terrorist" for characterizing people and organizations.Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

After 3 weeks? When the section was a radical change to the long standing version? If that is the R of BRD, lets restore the long-standing version, not the disputed one. Geometry guy 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific proposal for how to reword the section, or which version you prefer, you are free to make it. Excising a section is not a productive response to disagreeing on the formulation.Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why address this comment to me? Does it matter what I think? I'm prepared to revert to an early version, but I wouldn't like it. Geometry guy 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We should not need to be having this meta-discussion here, but consensus and stability are very important in policy and guideline pages, so as to keep the project running smoothly. Even on an article talk page, if a change faces significant, principled opposition by legitimate editors it should be promoted by discussion rather than attempted attempted warring. Per WP:BRD and the dispute resolution process the article stays as it is and gets discussed until editors agree or, after sufficient time for discussion and weighing in, there is some kind of clear weight of opinion in favor of the change. That is particularly true on policy and guideline pages, which are supposed to be descriptive of editing norms and do not function as rule-making bodies. It turns the consensus process on its head to suggest that pages need to prove ongoing continual talk page consensus to stay the same, that a change is minor if it is right, or that a guideline lacks consensus because a few people at the moment have come to a talk page discussion to argue against it. The terrorism section on this page is a significant guideline. As noted above it has been at the heart of many significant disputes in article space. Removing it, or moving it, two very different suggestions, is the kind of thing that needs consensus through discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are indeed special. If a particular recommendation to editors in a particular guideline is the cause of long-standing disagreement, frequent controversy, and edit wars, then it is far better that the guideline say nothing rather than endorse one viewpoint or another. Geometry guy 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If that were true we would have to rid Wikipedia of most of our guidelines, starting with the image use policy, WP:EL and WP:RS. The test isn't whether people can behave themselves on the guideline talk page, but whether the guideline reflects editing norms on the project as a whole and is a valuable contribution to formalizing those norms. Frankly, most of the discussion here on both sides seems to be aimless speculation that does not pay much attention to how the guideline affects Wikipedia in practice. This particular section, as I say, is cited fairly often and nearly always favorably in resolving disputes over some of Wikipedia's more important articles. A small smattering of such uses can be found by searching various talk pages, e.g. here.Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Until recently Wikipedia:Words to avoid was a very useful guideline on how not to misuse the English language, for example, how the use of the word "claim" might have implications that the word "said" did not. It encouraged editors to be careful and to think about how they wrote. Now, suddenly it is a POV pushing page. What happened? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mattisse. Example quotes:

• "I think WP:TERRORIST , as a guideline, is trumped by the policy WP:NPOV , which clearly indicates that "terrorist" is the word to use..."
• "That WP:TERRORIST is part of a guideline, not a policy, would seem to mean to me that the term should be carefully examined..."
• "We have a style guideline on this issue WP:TERRORIST (which User:IronDuke has repeatedly tried to alter..."
• "Funny how people keep saying "WP:TERRORIST", but no one has been able to explain why WP:TERRORIST applies in this case..."
• "While the WP:TERRORIST style guideline apparently says to "never" use the word "terrorist," I would note it is subordinate to the WP:NPOV..."

What a fantastic contribution to the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies indeed, but subtle and complex in implementation. A number of guidelines throughout the encyclopedia have details on how to go about it. This page, as others note, has cautioned against using "terrorist" for the better part of five years, so that is nothing recent. It's clear that the page has become a reference point for avoiding POV, and its importance is emphasized even where people argue that the page does not apply. About half the words in this guideline page are there, in part, because by their nature they tend to introduce POV. It's a legitimate suggestion that we should break this into two guidelines, one for POV issues and another for mere matters of good English. If we do that we should do so after due comment and deliberation, and carefully so as to avoid breaking the many links to its various sections. Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is indeed one of our most important guidelines, and I am one of its most active proponents in the good article process. I also believe WTA is a valuable component in the GA criteria because it flags NPOV concerns. However, I am against this being taken too far, and terrorism being singled out as a special case. If there is a case that "terrorist" is almost always used in our best articles as a label to tar opponents of a cause and push point of view, then it needs to be mentioned at NPOV. The general tone of the section, however, needs to find a better place than WTA, just as I moved out to WP:NPOV (without complaint) the section on article structure, Given the above comments we probably have to revert to a version like this. Surely it is better to say nothing. Geometry guy 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of what WTA says or the words that it lists as wrong, if an editor has reliable sources stating that x is a terrorist, that information could still go into the article, as Wikipedia does not establish truth. If another editor has reliable sources stating that x has been mislabeled or unjustly called a terrorist, than that could be added also. Our personal opinions about the word "terrorist" are irrelevant. WTA was a wonderful guideline because it referred to the use and misuse of ordinary words. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a rabbit hole I'd rather not go down but in short, no. Not everything that is sourceable is fit for the encyclopedia. Reliable sources say a lot of things, and they use words on this list frequently: "alleged", "denied", "it should be noted that...", but that does not mean we have to say the matter should be noted. Reliable sources use peacock terms, make value judgments, and make controversial claims about non-notable living people. Verifiability is a threshold to pass before something may be in the encyclopedia at all, but verifiability alone does not justify adding content. In practice, reliable sources tend to avoid the word "terrorist" for the same reasons that make them reliable. They stick to the facts and avoid pejorative words, opinion, editorializing, etc. But the problem with the word is usually not a matter of verifiability, it is often POV, weight, BLP, and so on. There is wide agreement, borne in the outcome of a lot of article edits, that we have to be careful with the term.Wikidemon (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But we don't have to get into the "truth" business here on the WTA page. We would have a whole lot of truth to make, if we did! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Shit! He accidentally spoke explicitly. Wikidemon is determined to throw overboard any and all reliable sources for the gospel according to... Wikidemon. I'll do a LexisNexis news search for the word "terrorist"...WOW, I did a search for only the last three months and it returned "More than 3000 Results"! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. Sourcing is not at issue here. Wikipedia has WP:5P, you know. With that, and particularly the uncivil edit summary,[19] I think we're done. I can't take seriously any proposal that we overturn a 5-year practice of trying to avoid the label "terrorist", which continues to enjoy wide consensus in the main space, and given the argumentativeness and incivility I'm not going to bother discussing that issue any further. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it seems like censorship or overly political correct to have a blanket forbid for a common English word that enjoys wide spread use. Is it like the pejorative use of "liberal" in the US discussed above? Should we take national differences into account, like a word that is bad in India but is ok in Holland should still be put on the no-no list? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bad guy" is also a commonly used english phrase, still we don't allow it on wikipedia in violation of several policies. That's not censorship, or overly political correct, but simply a feature of an encyclopedia. To this you would want to reply with "but we don't add "Bad guy to the words to avoid list either!". That's different because in the case of good guy/bad guy common sense applies and I've never seen it happen. However on warfare related articles I see the phrases terrorists, criminals thrown around and reverted like a plague. Why is that? Why are these phrases used all of the time, but not good guy/bad guy anymore? It's because terrorists and other pejorative terms have been politicized over the past decades. That's why such a guideline is essential.

User:Geometry_guy Has made some good points that WP:NPOV already covers the section we're debating, but I don't agree with his idea that because of that its inclusion here is unnecessary. If we follow that logic, we may just get rid of the entire words to avoid section. Furthermore I wonder why you guys care so much about the removal of this section? Is it perfectionism? Or has it been bothering any of you in debates/discussions? Because if you're convinced that WP:NPOV already covers the section, its inclusion here can't possibly harm anything since the outcome should be the same. I can tell however, as someone who uses most of his editing on wikipedia on war-related subjects, that the exclusion would largely harm neutrality and would cost many editors hours of effort and edit warring, including me.

BTW, isn't there a set of old-wisemen that own wikipedia? I wish we could call upon them to make a decision :( Grey Fox (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• [ec] I'm unaware of regional differences in the meaning and usage of the label "terrorist". I believe most English-speaking countries mean the same thing by it, although the politics behind who gets called a terrorist varies from place to place. "Terrorist", when misused, is a pejorative label for things based on a value judgment. It is not the function of the encyclopedia to pronounce such judgments, whether sourceable or not. Adhering to style guides on word usage is not censorship. Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Sure "terrorist" is an evocative word. That's why its use must be very, very strictly and carefully and precisely sourced. But a blanket ban? That's censorship by any other name. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban in the guideline, but there is a specification of how and where it should be used. Word usage and encyclopedic tone are not primarily a matter for WP:V or WP:RS. Those relate to verifiability of factual claims made in the encyclopedia. Where the difference between calling a person or organization a terrorist or calling them something else is a matter of expressing an opinion, the only thing we can really verify is that a certain person has made that judgment. We're not in a position of endorsing it or not in those cases. As a hopefully uncontroversial illustration, if we read reliable articles about fashion, a major mainstream media source is likely to use words like "brilliant", "dowdy", "unflattering", or "derivative" to describe somebody's dress. But Wikipedia does not call fashion choices "brilliant" - it can merely note that some sources have said so, or voiced approval. "Censorship" is not a productive way to look at that kind of word usage choice. Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• (response to Grey Fox-9589) As you seem to note, it's pretty useful on Wikipedia for guideline pages to get into more detail and specific examples than the policy pages. That's true in places where there is a hierarchy (e.g. the WP:NFC guideline that elaborates on the WP:NFCC policy), and also in cases like this guideline, which follows from multiple policies. I agree that the terrorist section here tends to encourage consensus rather than repeated debate and edit warring over the word whenever it appears, that generally leads to the same result...that's what a guideline is all about. It seems there are three different proposals afoot, which are not really compatible: (1) move the terrorist section to some other page, and if so where; (2) remove entirely from Wikipedia any limitation or caution against using the word terrorist, which I think is a non-starter; and (3) change the wording of the section, wherever it may end up. Constructive proposals are always welcome, but I think we ought to deal with each of these separately, and figure out #1 and #2 before turning to #3. Wikidemon (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The only "imitation or caution against using the word terrorist" should be WP:V; see my comments immediately above yours. Is that a non-starter? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• (response to Grey Fox-9589) Humm! (Is that the royal "we"?) We can't use bad guy either? Shall we add it to the list? (That is sexist and agist to use "old-wisemen" - are you implying that only old men can be wise?) Although after that lecture above, we guess we should keep our mouth(s) shut?

Start list of bad words here

1. bad guy
2. terrorist
3. liberal
4. old-wisemen

Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered your quenstion in my previous message. Those other terms do not cause constant conflicts, when they do then yes they may also be included. Grey Fox (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) There is a reason that "censorship" is a helpful and productive way to look at this debate. It is based on the striking difference between "terrorist" and other terms such as "wonderful, excellent". The latter terms are wholely subjective. The quality of being a "terrorist" is something that can in fact be objectively determined: does the person or organization deliberately use violent/destructive/fatal means against non-combatantants to intimidate a population other than their own? End of story. denying the existence of an objective criterion is POV-laden. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If terrorist is something that can objectively determined, why is it that there is no agreed definition? What is a non-combatant in a rebellion where the state does not recognise that armed conflict is taking place, surly in that case everyone is a non-combatant as there is no combat? What does "a population other than their own" mean does this mean that the "Red Army Faction" were not committing a terrorist act when they kidnapped and killed Hanns-Martin Schleyer? The PIRA were fighting in Northern Ireland which is part of the UK does that mean, as Warrington is also part of the UK, that the bombing in the town centre in 1993 was not terrorist attack? If you consider England and Northern Ireland not to be the same population, what about the Enniskillen Remembrance Day bombing? So no I don't think that "terrorist" is something that can in fact be objectively determined. --PBS (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, again you are using the same straw man you used in the discussion back in December. That there is no complete definition for terrorist, providing necessary and sufficient conditions, does not mean that there are no uncontroversial usages. Instead of admitting that there are uncontroversial usages, and that these usages render the current form of the guideline vacuous and stupid, you continue to spam controversial examples. Ray (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Does the person or organization deliberately use violent/destructive/fatal means against non-combatantants to intimidate a population other than their own? End of story. " There is no such defenition Ling.Nut. The word is thrown around for people who attack combatants, such as during a war for independence. Furthermore if that would be a defenition there's a whole list of countries that we could call state terrorist, and presidents called terrorists. Since the US and Iran have not long ago included each others' army on the list of designated terrorist organizations, that won't be far off, right? Grey Fox (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Grey For-9589, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To say "bad guy" could be put on the WTA list is not a serious suggestion, I hope. The criteria is not "whether words cause constant conflict". Wikipedia is not in the business of determining objective truth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia using primarily secondary and tertiary sources to back up our statements. Per the core policy of verifiability, our job is the verify not to determine truth. You seem to be sure you are "right", but you so far have not provided any backing that "bad guy" and "terrorist" have secondary and tertiary sources backing your contentious that they are generally "words to avoid". The guideline WTA is not about specific words to avoid (until recently); rather it give examples of words to avoid in certain situations, words that are fine to use in other situations. The distinction beween "claim" and "said" are a very good example of the kind of distinction WTA tries to teach. None if this is POV. The discussion over words like terrorist is POV. If Wikipedia forbids all words that are thrown around, as you imply it should, then it would be forbidding many thousands of words.The problem is not the words, it is the way an editor may use them. . —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so after all these years it turns out that the inclusion of wp:terrorist and wp:extremist was against wiki rules? I know the rules fine Mattisse, but tanks for pointing them out. Nothing here is against the rules, and wp:v is included in the guideline. What's the deal with asking for secondary sources? As you can see this WTA section doesn't even have a reflist; guidelines for encyclopedias hardly exist in the form of bookwork. As for this policy not being restricted to words to avoid in certain situations, read it again. It quite clearly states that words such as terrorist, extremist and freedom fighter MAY BE USED, but only with the source properly attributed in the sentence. Since you don't seem to know the difference, that means that it should read as According to (A), (D) is a terrorist. instead of [D] is a terrorist. In part a criteria for inclusion here is indeed words that cause the most problems, because the goal of wiki guidelines is to improve the wiki project by not only filtering viewpoints, but also avoiding recurrent disputes when possible. Grey Fox (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there such a thing as wp:terriorist if groups/individuals aren't supposed to be considered terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.42.220 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents, as I was previously involved in the WP:TERRORIST debate...

I don't think there is a blanket ban on the word "terrorist", just like there is no blanket ban on words such as "scandal" or "affair". However, we need to be careful about how the word is applied. "Terrorist" especially should be carefully used, as it can and has been used to de-legitimise politicial opponents.

Let's take a look at NPOV, which states that we should "assert facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves". I'm using Merriam-Webster as a source for definitions here: a "fact" has "objective reality", while an opinion is "a view, judgement or appraisal formed...about a particular manner". Whether someone is a "terrorist" or not is more likely to be an opinion. A widely held opinion, yes, but that doesn't equate it to being a fact. It is very hard to objectively say if someone is a terrorist or not; not only because it's nearly always subjective, but because we don't have a clear definition. Possibly the only way we can objectively label something as terrorist is by using the basic syntactic definition (i.e., the primary/only aim is to induce fear in the targets, as opposed to a political demonstration), or admission from the subject.

Of course, that doesn't mean the word is banned. We just can't state it as fact. Take for example, Gerry Adams, or Nelson Mandela. They're both considered reputable statesmen (possibly Mandela more than Adams), but were, at one point, considered to be terrorists: Adams for his relationship to the Provisional IRA; Mandela for his anti-apartheid activism. Were we thirty years in the past, we wouldn't be able to say that Adams is a terrorist; we'd get an uproar from the Irish republicans, both on- and off-wiki. We need to be careful. However, it is perfectly acceptable—article structure, weight and relevance considered—to say that "X says Y is a terrorist", where X is clearly defined and reputable. Terrible writing (as we often don't get context behind the judgement), but more neutral.

Consider, for a moment, the word "fascist". Orwell famously said that the word is meaningless, because "I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."^[20] However, unquestionable fascists do exist. Oswald Mosley in real life, Adam Susan fictionally. So how do we say they're fascist? We could say they're fascist, as that's a pure fact. But as it could be confused for opinion, why don't we offer context to the fact? It is better to say "Mosley was the founder of the British Union of Fascists" than "Mosley was a fascist", and likewise "Susan is an adherent of pure fascism, extolling beliefs in unity and peace and disdain towards the epithetic use of the word"^{[V for Vendetta paperback compilation, p37]} is better than "Susan is a fascist". Context should be given to labels like that. Ideally, we should discourage use of innuendo-laced words in lieu of much more specific terms (e.g., instead of saying "van Gogh was mental", say "van Gogh suffered from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression which led to his suicide).^{[And yes, I know van Gogh's exact mental condition when he was alive is debatable]}

So, what do I mean by this diatribe? Simply, keep the section. "Terrorist" should be neither banned nor used lightly, and should always be treated as an opinion, and not a fact. If possible, we add context to the label terrorist, or replace it with a more specific and neutral word. We should very rarely, if at all, use it as an unexplained qualifier. Hope this helps, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My two cents, for whatever they're worth. Terrorist shouldn't be on a list of words to avoid, it's a term with a clearly defined meaning, and a more defined one that "neutral " substitutes. Lots of words carry a pejorative connotation in addition to a more precise meaning: for example, in parts of the United States "liberal" is an insult. Nonetheless, the terms terrorist and terrorism are used almost universally in scholarly and professional literature. Terrorist is not an "inherently" non-neutral term, it simply refers to someone who commits acts of terrorism, which is a clearly defined concept. Using words like "gunman" instead of "terrorist" strips out a lot of meaning. There are lots of gunmen, most of whom are not terrorists at all. "Shooting attack" is not more informative that "terrorist attack". There are lots of "shooting attacks" out there. People are murdered daily in "shooting attacks" in major cities worldwide, and a shooting attack could mean anything from an armed robbery gone bad to a drive-by shooting to, arguably, a military confrontation. "Terrorist attack", however, conveys a specific meaning, albeit one about the purpose of the attack. Obviously "terrorist shooting attack" would be the best usage, conveying meaning from both terms, but there is nothing wrong with saying "terrorist attack".

Terrorist attack is also the term that scholars and the media use. September 11 is always referred to as a "terrorist attack", not a "planes crashing into buildings attack". This term conveys meaning. Specifically, 9/11 was an act of terrorism: the use of violence to inspire fear for political purposes. This description tells me what I need to know. Cool3 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool3 were the attacks on Bloody Sunday (1920) terrorist attacks? --PBS (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, which reminds me of two things I have mentioned but are continued to be ignored:

1. This section is not only about "terrorist", but also "freedom fighter" and "extremist": its about the context. For example in 2008 Mumbai attacks, we call the attacks "terrorist" but call the attackers, well, "attackers". Why? Because a freedom fighter can do a terrorist action as part of its fight for freedom: no doubt that certain actions by the PIRA are terrorist actions, but not all of their actions. There is a certain POV being pushed, mainly from American mass media, that alleges that "terrorist" is somewhat analogous to "communist" - an ideology, a program etc. It isn't. It is both a specific military tactic in asynchronous warfare, and a modus operandi - that can be used by your side or the other. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. If this were about censorship, why can't we call the Provos "freedom fighters"? After all, I can find, trivially a gazilion RS that call them just that. This censorship argument is weak, begs the question, and quite frankly, its an uncivil accusation and fails to assume good faith.
2. WTA is not a rule that bans, it is call to reflect and to reason. In ask that we as editors stop and consider if calling someone or some organization "terrorist" is really the way to precent an NPOV encyclopedia? Could it be an infamatory tone We ar enot MSNBC or Fox News or Al Jazeera, we do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator: we can, but it might not be a good idea. However, even if it "banned" words, we still have WP:IAR.

In fact to those who protest on NPOV (zounds!) or CENSORSHIP (gasp!) grounds: thou dost protest too much! It is not censorship, for example to not call a given religion a "cult". It is simply sticking to the facts, without embelishment - with the salutatory effect that by not using inflamatory language, we will be able to expose true POV pushers for a given religion: since there are no easy controversies, all they can do is dispute the presentation of facts that prove to a ny reader that they are a cult. For example, I try to always say "X is considered a terrorist organization by Y and Z, among others", instead of "X is a terrorist group". Both might be factually correct, but the latter only gives an unqualified, uninteresting and over-distilled (and hence weak) fact, while the former expands the knowledge of our readers, is more specific, and provides a clear context. And both use the word terrorist, because the issue is not censoring the use of the word, is managing its use, not only for NPOV reason, but for the possibly disruptive and unencyclopedic distraction it creates. Let the facts speak, no need to spoon feed our reader editorializations.--Cerejota (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point indeed. And since there is ambiguity and/or disagreement over whether a 12 storey building (with say a mix of masonry supported and steel supported architecture) is a skyscraper, I suggest we add "skyscraper" to the words to avoid and remove its flagrant abuse in the first sentence of the lead of Sears Tower. Geometry guy 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. Its is very hard to have a rational discussion with people if they fail to see the basic difference between ambiguity in how to describe how tall a building is and in how to describe political violence. I highly recommend you peruse the List of fallacies.--Cerejota (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Laugh out loud! I followed your link to confirmation bias, and it applies better to PBS's remark, not mine. Namely he suggests that because there is ambiguity over whether Bloody Sunday should be called a terrorist attack, the word should not be used without attribution even in clear cut cases like the September 11 attack. He is picking and choosing examples to confirm his prior belief.

I also find it impossible to have rational discussion with people who fail to recognize that this is a style guideline, not a political football. If appeal to ridicule is inappropriate in response to this nonsense, then "appeal to quoting logical fallacies" is even more feeble and facile. Geometry guy 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article Let’s see the 'criticism' of Israel for what it really is by Howard Jacobson ( 18 February 2009) makes a good point on this issue:

Rhetoric is precisely what has warped report and analysis these past months, and in the process made life fraught for most English Jews who, like me, do not differentiate between the worth of Jewish and Palestinian lives, though the imputation – loud and clear in a new hate-fuelled little chamber-piece by Caryl Churchill – is that Jews do. “Massacre” and “Slaughter” are rhetorical terms. They determine the issue before it can begin to be discussed. Are you for massacre or are you not? When did you stop slaughtering your wife?

Now you may or may not agree with his point of view, about the conflict in Gaza, but it is clear that one can use such terms to advance a position ie as rhetorical device.

Terrorist is a similar word that can be used to structure an argument. As the section Pejorative use in the Terrorist article makes clear when it quotes Bruce Hoffman: "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."

If there was contention over the description of a building as a skyscraper then it would be best to present the different views over whether a building was a skyscraper or not. The only reason for highlighting the word terrorism is because it seems many people genuinely do not recognise that it has negative connotations and is frequently used as a rhetorical device. Pages 34-40 from The State and Terrorism by Joseph H. Campos makes interesting reading on how the word terrorism came to have the meaning it does in the States). --PBS (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Retain policy - in the most responsible and insightful form possible. When we permit the [unnecessary] usage of pejorative terms, we inadvertently take sides and open the door to systemic bias. Explicable usage [of any word] is already permitted under WP:IAR.   — C M B J   06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

retain per CMBJ. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Discourage use of "Research" in section headings

I added the following rule of thumb to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article and section titles:

Sections containing many references to various studies are preferably not simply titled "Research" without further specification. Unless the contents relate to basic principles in researching and could fit into the main article Research, the titles of such sections are better specified with what the studies and their results are aimed at. This does a great favor to the reader, who probably prefers to know the relevance of the studies for the subject at hand rather than the research itself.

However, it was suggested [21] that it would fit better in Manual of Style (seems to me to be in Wikipedia:MOS#Section headings). However, I still think it fitted better here. What do you think? Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Which of these should we import?

Wikisource has an interesting section from The Elements of Style on commonly misused words. It's a bit long, but it has a lot to offer us. Ray^Talk 13:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Crisis

Like scandal, "crisis" has a loaded but ambiguous meaning. In some events, it is part of a phrase which is used in mainstream media and scholarly works nearly universally "Mid-life crisis". But more often than not, various events of the day which have either great import or some salacious details that can sell media are labelled "crisis" whether warranted or not: "Energy crisis", "Stock market crisis", "Economic crisis", "Crisis in Darfur", etc. We should stress in the guideline that only the former meaning of "crisis" should be used, to maintain NPOV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag on terrorism section

An editor insists we keep a dispute tag on the "terrorist" section.[22][23] I think that's disruptive to the encyclopedia (the tag, not the editor) because by telling people the issue is undecided it weakens the guideline principle to avoid applying the word, which in turn is at issue in quite a few edit wars and disputes throughout the encyclopedia, not to mention simple drive-by efforts to brand people as terrorists.[24][25] I'm pretty sure there is a project wide consensus on the subject and a failed attempt here to overturn that consensus. Does anyone have an opinion on whether the tag should stay? My thought is that we cannot leave important guidelines in an indefinite state of dispute. At some point, a proposal either gains consensus or it does not and the fact that some people wish it were otherwise does not mean there is a bona fide, active dispute.Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose we stop fiddling around and take this to a permanent RFC. There is no project wide consensus for the current wording -- it was inserted last August during a lull, and very few people commented on it. It was strenuously disputed late last Autumn, a conversation that died when Dank55 moved it to another page. That was fine for 2 or 3 weeks, and then there was an arbitrary decision to revert to the previous situation in the face of strident opposition on this page, which discussion spilled over again. My distaste for this conversation stems in large part from the "we got here first so we stick and as long as we argue with you there is no consensus to remove" attitude on the part of certain proponents of the current language. It is long past time we submitted this for general discussion. If somebody who likes the current language will undertake to write a short comment in support of it, I'll be glad to write a summary of my arguments against it. In the meantime, as the discussion has restarted, I hope that there will be no further issue with putting the tag back in. Ray^Talk 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question: what do you call Martin McGuinness? He was the member of the Provisional IRA. Surely he's a terrorist. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

An Irish nationalist, even one critical of the actions of the Provos, might call him a freedom fighter. Some even call him a traitor. Surely you understand the concept of "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" and how not understanding or disregarding it breaks the principles of neutrality. I has nothign to do with calling spades, spades, and everything with defending NPOV.

As to the current wording emerging in the summer of 2008, that might be so, but it is a toothless version that skips the key question. Way before then, this section actualled called spades, spades, showing that "extremism" and "terroism" wer eboth POV pejorative terms with the exact same encyclopedic value as Nigger, that is only value as it relates to its use as a term. As it stands today it is a wishy-washy "compromise" version that doesn't protect NPOV at all.

It was expanded to include examples etc, but this section has been there since forever, and has been watered down. We can all look at the history, but for example, here is how it stood in August 1 2007, you can see it is much better then.

However, Ray is missing something, which is that "Terrorist" has been part of WTA since the article started with terrorist as the main topic, and later added other things, as the first edit from December 16, 2001 shows. Consensus can change and all that, but to allege "seniority" of those who want the section removed simply doesn't stand to scrutiny. The reality is that in general the community has understood the value of preserving neutrality, and the section developed, up to 2007 or so, with the generalized acceptance that it was a WTA. Since then a dedicated set of editors has tried to change it, including those who in the early summer of 2008 butchered the section and were duly reverted. --Cerejota (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, you know quite well (indeed, we've been over this to exhaustion last December) that my objection is to the current language, not the existence of a cautionary statement regarding terrorists. That is the language that was inserted, and then kept on the basis of seniority. I would be perfectly happy with the pre-summer 2008 language, and indeed have offered similar language in the past. To be precise, my objection is with the use of the term "never" and all the starkness that implies. Ray^Talk 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray: what is the point of including something in a guideline called "Words to avoid" if you don't tell people to avoid the word? It makes no sense to me. Again, IAR covers your concern: if there is indeed an uncontroversial way to insert the word which unquestionably advances encyclopedic quality, then you IAR. We already do: Terrorism, History of Terrorism etc etc etc. --Cerejota (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WTA is a style guideline and this talk page is concerned with maintaining and improving it. The question you ask is completely irrelevant to this task.

For the record, I oppose the current version of the terrorist section because it politicizes a style guideline.

I do not oppose to make a point, I simply believe that this guideline should be addressing the concern that the term "terrorist" can be abused as a label, and therefore its use in the unqualified narrative requires caution. Style guidelines have absolutely no place in getting involved in political agendas. That should be discussed elsewhere.

I do not comment often here because my impression has been that editors who care about political agendas associated with the word "terrorist" are unable to see that a guideline which focuses only on style is better than a disputed guideline on political agendas. So be it. I primarily watch this page to make sure it contains good advice for good article reviewers. The terrorist section could easily be removed from the good article criteria, but that would be a sad conclusion. Geometry guy 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines are extensions of policies, explanations of how the abstract principles become actual editing. I find this dichotomy a false one, and have only seen it argued precisely when people want to exclude themselves from having to take them into consideration. Ultimately, we can WP:IAR, but for IAR to be successful it has to be SNOW, and calling, say, the Ulster Volunteer Force "terrorist" is far from snowball.

Many style guidelines in Wikipedia do involve themselves with interpretation of policy, such as WP:NCGN (WP:RS and to a certain extent NPOV) or WP:MILMOS#CODENAME (pure NPOV). So it is unconvincing (and relatively recent) this meme of "just a style guideline".

Unfortunately for you, Geometry Guy, the NPOV policy does apply even to topics about people, organizations and actions considered by some, or even universally, as terrorist. There is no buts, ifs, or amount of thinly veiled personal attacks that can hides this very salient fact. Those who support the use of the the pejorative, politically charged term "terrorism" because they politically oppose those to whom the label is applied, always fail to address the overiding, all encompasing, and non-negotiable basis of NPOV. "Terrorist" is not a neutral term, except among certain political circles whose POV is that their enemies are all terrorists, so it is to be avoided in order to not compromise NPOV. It is that simple, no nefarious conspiracy needed.--Cerejota (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it unfortunate for me? I am one of the most vehement supporters and advocates of the NPOV policy. It applies everywhere, irrespective of what this guidelines says. It is the job of editors to enforce neutral point of view, not guidelines. Guidelines are there to help and advice, not provide dictats. The idea that the word "terrorist" is inherently always and absolutely an offensive political label is itself an implied viewpoint, contrary to NPOV. Geometry guy 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Find one neutral, reliable source that categorically doesn't describe "terrorist" as a an offensive political label. One source is all I ask. While doing this lengthy research (I have been doing it for years and I haven't found it), find a single group that calls itself terrorist: You would have to go back to the 19th century and some nihilist anarchists to find it. Hell, the term is so complex in this sense, that we have an article devoted exclusively to it: Definition of terrorism - one of the few articles that do this in Wikipedia (we are not a dictionary, remember?). The verifiable status of the word is that it is highly controversial, that notable experts disagree, and that in general it is pejorative. Even sources that use this term, in academic contexts,

"Terrorist" in contemporary usage is not even like "Communist" in that it was used as a pejorative by some and a self-description by others: it is a universally meant to be a pejorative political term. For example, Osama Bin Laden calls the USA "terrorist". If the guy who has become synonymous in the Western mind with "terrorist" uses it against the USA, supported by millions of like minded people one has to suspect something iffy: that is how worthless the word is for an encyclopedia that calls itself neutral. Just because your POV needs to be able to use the word whenever you find it convinient doesn't make it anything other than what it is, an offensive political label and hence a WTA. There are no articles in which you can insert the word to describe something without it instantly turning that article into a battleground. And the point of WTA is precisely limit battlegrounds to generate more productive edit.

Lastly, in all of these discussions we always talk about "terrorist", but what about "extremists" and "freedom fighter"? --Cerejota (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't write checks your Google can't cash: I give you the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on terrorism. Stigma doesn't imply "universally pejorative." Ray^Talk 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving the terrorist section within the article

I'm starting this as a new section as the last thread seems to have fizzled out, and so that discussion here can focus specifically on what I am proposing. After reading over the majority of the discussion on the word terrorist that has taken place over the last several months, I would like to first make a few comments.

• "Terrorist" is a label. Nearly every label has some gray area. Even the most uncontroversial labels may enter territory where they can be disputed. For example, what exactly is a skyscraper (clearly the Sears Tower is one; clearly my two-story house is not, but somewhere in the middle there is a problem). We already have a section Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that label dealing with such labels. As a point of fact, terrorist is a subset of words that label.
• Terrorist is a word with a particularly enormous gray area. Gandhi was almost certainly not a terrorist. Osama bin Laden is almost certainly a terrorist, but some people might even dispute these classifications. Thus, great care needs to be used in calling people terrorists.
• Terrorism is a useful analytical category frequently used in the scholarly literature. While the exact definition varies, actions and tactics (rather than people or groups) can be objectively labeled as acts of terrorism. There is still a large gray area here, but at least in my opinion, it is a much smaller one than the gray area for calling an individual a terrorist. Failing to refer to terrorism in articles on true terrorist attacks (e.g., 9/11) would be bizarre and useless. Even in such cases, however, it may be better to attribute the assertion that an attack is terrorism. However, in the case of 9/11 where literally millions of citations could be provided, this may not be needed.
• The problem with calling people, events, or groups in the large gray area "terrorist" is that these labels may introduce a non-neutral point of view, effectively condemning whatever is labeled as "terrorist". This is really the same problem as "Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." which is part of the text found back at words that label.

The point that I am now arriving at is that the terrorist section is in the wrong place, and may even be redundant. The problem does not come from terrorist being a word with multiple meanings, the problem is that terrorism is one of the "Words that may advance a point of view", specifically a word that labels. Moving terrorism into that category will, in my opinion, help clear up some of the issues we are now encountering. I have already moved the section to a new location, without changing the wording in any way. I think that the wording of the section should also be changed somewhat in order to fit with its new location, but I will make this change separately, so that any wording changes will be a distinct issue from the move. Cool3 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the move. The previous placement did not make sense to me, this placement seems entirely logical. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The original text before my changes is preserved here:

 : This section is about using the terms in articles. For use of the Category:Terrorists, see the definition there.

See also: Wikipedia:Controversial articles § Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative terms, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighters" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should never be used as labels in the unqualified narrative voice of the article.

If a reliable source describes a person or group 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. 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.

When replacing one of these words with a less controversial one, the word to be used should be decided on a case to case basis, taking into account the words' ambiguity, appropriateness and specificity in regards to the context at hand. Factual descriptions such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage-taker, kidnapper and suicide bomber, are often suitable as replacements. Assassin may in some circumstances be appropriate, but that word can also carry a non-neutral point of view (and hence such euphemisms as targeted killing). Other words to consider using, but depending context may also carry non-neutral point of view, are insurgent, paramilitary, partisan and militant.

• I have made several, relatively small changes to this text, principally to refer to these words specifically as labels. Cool3 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the problem is that it is a label, and it becomes a problem either when the label itself is controversial or when attaching the label adds only an opinionated judgment to the cited facts. The page already has a number of other words that fit this category, so grouping them in one place makes sense. I agree that it is most likely to be a useful designation if used analytically to describe a tactic - but there too it is often used as a simple pejorative classification. Someone sabotages a bulldozer at a construction site where a forest is being cleared, someone else wants to call that an act of terrorism; a NIMBY commits arson on a home under construction or an animal activist releases a lab animal, someone says that is a terrorist act. So we should be careful there too. Another reasonable usage is to report that some relevant official body has designated (not merely opined) a person, group, or incident to be terrorist. There are some individuals who can fairly be called terrorists as an analytic classification rather than as a disparagement - they have devoted their life to committing or advancing terrorist acts. And some groups are devoted to terrorism to such an extent that it defines them. I think that's a different issue: when it is fair to label a person or group for their actions: when does a person who commits a crime become a criminal? And while we're at it, when does a person who has carried a tune become a singer? Another factor at play is that many of the non-analytical examples of the terrorist label come in the context of partisan political accusations: supposing the opponents of America, for example, call America's conduct of the war in Iraq terrorist, should we report in the article about America or about the war that America is often called a terrorist state? If not America what about Israel? Iran? Syria? The key here is to avoid the term, meaning, to use it carefully and sparingly, for which we have certain guidance here that reflects how editors have dealt with the issue for the most part out in article space. Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this version much better. It addresses most of my concerns, and removes the starkness of the wording, making clear that the problem is non-neutral labelling, not with the word itself. Ray^Talk 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool3, I completely agree with your insightful analysis, and your conclusion that the segment is better placed in the context of words that label. I would add that the "words to avoid" guideline is not meant to be a comprehensive list, but a means to help editors choose their words well. I would therefore favour trimming the terrorism segment, in the context of words that label, to highlight the key issues related to the use of "terrorist" and "terrorism" that you have so nicely described. Geometry guy 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to dispute your third point, Cool, and would like to echo Wikidemon. I suspect there is still an amount of systemic bias to not make it objective; scholars have opinions themselves. Pretty much the only labelling which could be reliably neutral wording would be conviction or self-admission. Even those need to be treated carefully: what maybe terrorist in China may be constitutionally protected in the United States; and some admissions may have been coerced.

This is an area where the ethical requirement of BLP needs to be taken into consideration more than anything else. What do we say about people like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, or Nelson Mandela? In the past, they may have been considered terrorists. Now, all three are respectable politicians. It'd be suicide to call them terrorists. Again, what do you say about George Galloway, who has, on more than one occasion, said on talk radio he supports Hamas (which, in the UK, I'm sure is a proscribed terrorist group)? Again, he's a MP in Westminster. Characterising people like Galloway now, or McGuinness and Adams in the past, as terrorist, is suicide. Politically and ethically.

There is a reason why it has been always included on WTA. Because it's a useless term without context, it's often loaded, and it's also too replaceable. Why call Timothy McVeigh a terrorist when we can say he bombed a government building in Oklahoma? Much more context, and we avoid such sticky terms. And when it is strictly true, we should be able to give more context; I refer you to my Oswald Mosley argument. We could call him a fascist, as that's verifiably true. But it's also true, and more encyclopedic, to say he was the founder of the British Union of Fascists.

So yes. Like all of the other words, there should not be an outright prohibition. But nevertheless, it should be applied with the utmost care and used if and only if we can't use any other descruption. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I don't follow your logic. I agree that the term has certainly been abused by the media and politicians. But no one is suggesting, as far as I know, that we label Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Nelson Mandela, George Galloway or Timothy McVeigh as terrorists in an ancyclopedia article. Indeed this guideline is meant to caution editors against using words as labels.

For example, it is crazy to call someone a terrorist because they have positive things to say about an organization that engages in terrorist activity. If someone has coordinated terrorist activity in the past, it might be reasonable to say so. That's a matter for editors decide, not a style guideline. No one is suggesting a lead sentence "Martin McGuinness is an Irish terrorist who...". That would be daft. Geometry guy 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up the history of The Troubles-related articles and you would see that your assertion is pretty much incorrect: there have been concerted, long standing, and acrimonious debates precisely around this very question you call "daft". McGuiness' article history is full of ledes that say "Martin McGuinness is an Irish terrorist", but these get quickly overturned because it is a BLP and ta-da terrorist is WTA. WTA is not an abstract thing: it emerges from the experience of editing, and WTAs are WTAs precisely because they have proven to be obstacles for encyclopedic quality, mostly for reasons of NPOV. This is a practical point: if there exists a systemic consensus that those things are daft, it should be expressed in some way. I think you consider the point too much from your own more or less reasonable perspective, and fail to go into the shoes of people for whom these conflicts are a daily reality. It would take superhuman strenght for a Protestant Orangeman not to call McGuiness a terrorist, unless the rest of us who do not give a fuck tell him that it is a WTA. That is the point that is not being replied to: we as a community can intervene to ensure that NPOV is respected even when by the very nature of a topic, the involved editors are uncapable of neutrality.--Cerejota (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, that's horrible, and precisely how guidelines are not meant to be used. A guideline is supposed to be an instantiation of generally accepted practice (rising from agreements in lots of individual disputes), not a club with which to beat people over the head in content disputes, through an appeal to false authority. When a guideline is created because of a specific case, you get lots of problems, because exceptional cases are bad for describing the general case -- you end up trying to defend the position that Timothy McVeigh did not commit an act of terrorism, or that Narodnaya Volya was not a terrorist organization. Lawyers have a saying for this; "bad cases make bad law," which is to say that judges shouldn't try to create general rules because of special cases. Ray^Talk 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What I find horrible is your over-the-top dramatics. Please re-read what I wrote, this time assuming a little good faith. I am not suggesting a punitive policy, just a third set of eyes, a collective declaration of the community that there are certain words that are practically guaranteed to lead down unproductive roads. I am a firm believer on the principle of IAR, but I emphasize the improve encyclopedia part. You and I agree on the purpose of guidelines, but disagree on what they should say. Fair enough. However, putting words on peoples mouths with dramatic oh noes! ad absurdum arguments is certainly not very conducive to fruitful discussion. Please desist. --Cerejota (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I misread? Did you not say that you and like-minded people invoke WP:WTA as authority to shut people up in lieu of engaging their position when they want to call particular people terrorists? Did you not attempt to justify your position here by reference to special cases where people feel strongly and emotionally (such as the Troubles), and hang the consequences and ask everybody else to use WP:IAR for the rest of the cases in the broader category (just about every historical attack preceding the current era as well as noncontroversial ones in the current era)? If you did not, I mis-read. Please do reinterpret what you wrote for me, because I'm finding it difficult to read it any other way. And don't take this personally. I'm passionate about the practice, not about the person. If I thought you were acting in bad faith, we wouldn't be having this conversation. As much of a wikiholic as I am, I do have better things to do with my time. Ray^Talk 01:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your argument would sound more convincing if you would explain the ruling in Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 790 (9th Cir.) in the context of the American view of terrorism before and after 9/11--PBS (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain. Ray^Talk 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the US Government is less sympathetic to the "political offense exception" since 9/11.[26][27][28] (Google for more on the "political offense exception" )--PBS (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm using them as examples why we shouldn't call people terrorists: because it's stylistically meaningless. The politicians show how the label is subjective. McVeigh shows a better stylistic way of explaining he's a terrorist. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I can make the same argument about assassin. Or murderer. Or thief. That a word can be misused by politicians is no reason at all for banning it. Ray^Talk 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not misuse by politicians I'm worried about. It's misuse in the vernacular. With "terrorist" or "assassin", it's murky ground. It'd be okay to call someone a murderer or thief (verifiability given) because on the other hand, it has a clear legal definition. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a weak argument. Terrorism does have clear legal definitions. These definitions differ by jurisdiction, but so do definitions of theft, murder, kidnapping, fraud, con artist, etc. And Wikipedia not being a law journal, we are not necessarily restricted to using these terms in their legal senses. Ray^Talk 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No we are not but as soon as we use them as a political term then we enter the realm of presenting a POV. If we use them as a legal label then we should state under which jurisdiction and law the person is considered to be a terrorist.--PBS (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As soon as we use "terrorist" as a term to describe terrorist acts, we are making a nonlegal statement of fact. Here is another: "John Wilkes Booth was an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre, in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 1865." There is no political point of view here, merely a straightforward statement of fact. However, you may note that it is not a legal term, since Booth was never tried and convicted for the deed. Legally, the term would be something akin to "suspected assassin." Indeed, I don't believe assassination was a separate crime in the US at the time, so the legal term might be more properly something like "suspected murderer." Nonetheless, 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 "assassin", or "murderer", in the colloquial sense is appropriate. But there are incontestable cases where it is. The same applies to terrorist. 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: "Tragedy struck the 1972 Olympics in Munich when eight Palestinian terrorists invaded the Olympic Village on September 5 and killed two members of the Israeli team." from Britannica. Terrorist is not a scary word, or a Word Which Must Not Be Written. Adults can use it without cringing or hiding their eyes. Ray^Talk 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Brighton hotel bombing was an assassination attempt no one would disagree with that, ("Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.") but whether the organistion that sanctioned it was a terrorist organisation, depends on ones POV and as the British Government never negotiates with terrorists -- they presumably did not think it was! --PBS (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No there is no clear definition, and the variance is incredible. For example, in many US jurisdictions and at the federal level, there are laws against "terroristic threats", which are any credible verbal expression of violent intent - with out necessarily any political connotation. Then in Cuba, "terrorismo" is used to define things like kidnapping and larceny, considered common crimes in most other countries. Any scholar worth their mettle will tell you that. This is a fallacy often repeated by you and others, but it is not supported by the evidence: the variances amongst jurisdictions in terms of what are theft, murder, kidnapping, fraud, con artist might differ only in legal terms, but there are generally accepted as crimes with a common, non-specialist definition in every known society in the world. Not so with terrorism.

Speaking of Cuba, a good example is Luis Posada Carriles. Is he a terrorist? Should Wikipedia call him a terrorist? --Cerejota (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact that some people are hard to classify doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a terrorist. There's a gray area for just about everything. Is Taiwan a country? Kosovo? South Ossetia? It's hard to say, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about countries. Certainly, the United States is a country, and Colorado is not. The gray area is larger for terrorists, but the mere existence of that gray area is a weak argument against using the term. Cool3 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The word country is ambiguous and as such it is better not to use it as a descriptive word as a synonym for state. The Untied States is a sovereign state and like all sovereign states is possess territory. England is a country. Czechoslovakia was a state which had territory, but was that territory one or two countries? Taiwan is a state which claims it is sovereign but it is not universally recognised as such, Kosova is in a similar position. --PBS (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to respond by placing my third comment in context. I made it to be analogous to some of the other examples provided in the words that label. There is a sense in which terrorist is an objectively true label, just like racist can be an objectively true label. As that section already points out, however, just because it's technically true to call someone a racist or a terrorist doesn't mean you should do so in an unqualified manner and without attribution. Cool3 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To expand on that, a further point I was making is that we should not just avoid using the word terrorist, we should be careful about how we use it and avoid certain uses. Saying that scholar X or government Y labeled person Z as a terrorist is fine (and I think the page shows this already), but I'd just like to make sure we don't forget it. Cool3 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Style guide comparisons

For your consideration, the BBC editorial guidelines on the word. Could be useful. Looks like it's a source of inspiration for the section as it is already. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A good guideline, for an alternate perspective, have a look at the NPR style guide, available here, which provides the following guidance:

terrorism, terrorist - Terrorism is the act of causing terror, usually for political purposes, and it connotes that the terror is perpetrated on innocents. Thus, the bombing of a civilian airliner clearly is a terrorist act, but an attack on an army convoy, even if away from the battlefield, is not. Do not ape government usage. The Israeli government, for instance, routinely refers to PLO actions as terrorist. A journalist should use independent criteria to judge whether the term is accurate.

As an interesting fact, it appears that this policy caused a small stir in the media. See This article. Cool3 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is interesting. These guidelines are the center of controversy wherever they go. For what it's worth, the AP Stylebook refers explicitly to Al-Qaida as a "terrorist organization" [29], and the 9/11 attacks as "terrorist attacks" [30]. Sadly, Google preview doesn't cover the whole book. If people are actually interested, I'll look it up. Ray^Talk 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, I actually grabbed a copy of it and had a look. There's no actual entry for "terrorist" or "terrorism". Cool3 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "style guide" terrorist and these three were thrown up on the first page returned by Google:

• The Guardian and Observer style guide: T mentions "terrorism/terrorists". Note the comment "Some critics suggest that, for the Guardian, all terrorists are militants – unless their victims are British."
• There is an article in the Independent newspaper which quotes the Independent's style guide Guy Keleny Mea culpa: One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter,20 April 2002.

  It also says "All this came into my mind last Saturday. Our Middle East staff were reporting that 'Palestinian militants' had sent another suicide bomber to kill Israelis. Our men in Jerusalem and Beirut do not use 'terrorist' outside quotation marks, because it is the favoured language of Israeli propaganda. The same applies to the favoured language of Palestinian propaganda - and 'martyr' is not used naked either. ... But on a home news page of the same paper was this: 'Irish terrorists may have been plotting a bomb attack in London on the day of the Queen Mother's funeral, it was revealed yesterday.' ... I won't say that was wrong, because the style guide does not forbid it; but consistency is a virtue, and neither would it have been wrong to call them 'militants' or 'extremists'. Back in the days when the IRA were regularly blowing people up on the streets of English cities, it rather stuck in the craw to see the American media talking about "'IRA guerrillas'. Today it sticks in the craws of some people who write letters to this newspaper when we talk about Palestinian 'militants'. But I think the Americans were right then (for all that they did what they did not entirely in a spirit of unbiased objectivity, but with one eye on their Irish-American readers); and we are right now."

• This blog discusses and quotes the Australian Broadcasting Authority's style guide.

All three guides like that of the BBC mentioned above are broadly in agreement with ours, with the slight difference that they are in the business of selling newspapers or gaining audiences and some phrases that may be acceptable for selling newspapers (which are tomorrows fish and chips wrappers) are not so acceptable in a reference work. --PBS (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, PBS, although I'm going to take issue with your characterization of "broad agreement." Indeed, a closer examination of the links you provided shows that while the ABC, like the BBC, does avoid terrorist, the other two newspapers do not.

• Let us examine the relevant section of the Independent's style guide: "Terrorist is a much-abused word that still has a precise meaning. Terrorism is violent action intended to create terror among a civilian population so as to destabilise a government. Thus an IRA man who plants a bomb in a public house is acting as a terrorist; one who shoots a British soldier is not." We can see that the Independent regards specific actions as terrorist acts without the need for a qualifier.
• The Guardian/Observer style guide similarly begins with a straightforward definition, "A terrorist act is directed against victims chosen either randomly or as symbols of what is being opposed (eg workers in the World Trade Centre, tourists in Bali, Spanish commuters). It is designed to create a state of terror in the minds of a particular group of people or the public as a whole for political or social ends. Although most terrorist acts are violent, you can be a terrorist without being overtly violent (eg poisoning a water supply or gassing people on the underground)." The guide then moves on to explicitly address the point: "Whatever one's political sympathies, suicide bombers, the 9/11 attackers and most paramilitary groups can all reasonably be regarded as terrorists (or at least groups some of whose members perpetrate terrorist acts)." No need for saying 'somebody else says' or some other tortuous construction here -- suicide bombers, 9/11 attackers, and 'most paramilitary groups' are terrorists. I wouldn't have gone as far as the last one there, but there can be no question that the Guardian's guideline is not nearly as forbidding of the usage of "terrorist" as our own. The Guardian closes with a cautionary statement about the subjective nature of the judgment, which is just dandy.

From this examination we can conclude that while the ABC and BBC (state media organs both) suppress the use of the word "terrorist," the Independent and the Guardian (private entities less susceptible to government politics, but still with reasonable reputations for honesty and integrity) merely advise caution. Similarly, NPR (a non profit, privately supported organization with a reputation for integrity) does not ban the word, either. The Associated Press style guide, the standard for journalism in the United States, doesn't even bother to stick in cautionary wording, and uses "terrorist" and "terrorism" explicitly as unqualified labels in the narrative voice. I believe I have, earlier on this page, identified cases of the venerable "other" Encyclopedia, a disinterested academic reference work with several hundred years of tradition, treating "terrorist" in precisely the same manner.

I cannot help but notice that Wikipedia's current standards are much more like the rules for official media organs than those expected of disinterested private reporting. Ray^Talk 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reuters (a private new organisation) has a policy of not using terrorist unless it is attributed to a source.[31] Also although the Guardian and the Independent do allow for a certain lea-way, both are critisized internally for doing so, as the Independent article in which the style guide is quoted makes clear, as does the quote from the Guardian style guide which I have included. Further the BBC like Wikipedia have a NPOV policy something that most commercial newspapers do not. --PBS (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our article on them actually has the details. Reuters would be the exception among mainstream media agencies, so much so that it sparked a significant controversy, coming under attack from, among other places, the newspapers to whom they feed data and the Washington Post. Ray^Talk 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes as that article suggests the Washington Post never objected when Reuters failed to call the IRA terrorists but did object when Reuters failed to call the attackers of the American homeland terrorists. As the independent article above says "Back in the days when the IRA were regularly blowing people up on the streets of English cities, it rather stuck in the craw to see the American media talking about "'IRA guerrillas'. ... [in hindsight] I think the Americans were right then (for all that they did what they did not entirely in a spirit of unbiased objectivity, but with one eye on their Irish-American readers);" As the Guardian style guide alludes to "those that attack them are militants/guerrillas/freedom fighters, while those who attack us are terrorists". -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A survey of newspaper style guidelines is interesting but not directly on point. We're creating a newspaper, not an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Among other things, newspapers perform original research, voice opinion (even in news stories), reach conclusions, and are after a specific audience rather than a global one. Newspapers routinely print things that would violate many different parts of this guideline - they use judgmental or editorial words like "surprisingly", "significantly", or "however", for instance. Depending on which section, they may use words like "tragic" or "horrific" to describe a death scene. A survey of encyclopedia style guidelines may also be useful but there too our mission and practices differ from other encyclopedias. Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean we're creating an encyclopedia, not a newspaper? Cool3 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A major difference is that newspapers are not written collaboratively, and are not likely to lose all their energy on edit wars. We should look at the MOSs of newspapers in matters regarding dashes, capitalization, concise wording, precise expressions, etc. These are stylistic issues, which are shared between newspapers and wikipedia. As I see it, the TERRORIST thing is not really a style issue, but rather a mechanism to cut short edit wars about the use of this word, which would never be resolved otherwise. It is of course not always a good thing to cut short discussions about wording. But in this case, the potential benefits of the discussion (use 'terrorist' instead of 'suicide bomber') are by far outweighed by the wikidrama caused.Jasy jatere (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed re. use of these guidelines

Hi. I have a problem over at the Matthias Rath article in relation to applying the Words to Avoid guidelines and could do with some expert advice on whether “common sense” can be cited to justify making an exception of an entire WP:BLP. To me, the “occasional exception” phraseology in the guidelines’ banner refers to single uses of words to avoid, rather than making an exception of an entire article. As I see it, making an exception of an entire article clearly contravenes WP:NPOV. To briefly summarise the situation, after studying these guidelines carefully I used them to make some edits on 25 March. Surprisingly however, a couple of editors almost immediately reverted my edits in their entirety (one of them, incidentally, doing so three times within 24 hours). “Common sense” was one of the justifications cited by these editors. I would therefore be grateful for the thoughts and advice of the editors working on these guidelines. Thanks. Adrian CZ (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the article you are referring to, and I am seeing a number of problems. In some cases (but not all), it would appear that use of the word "claim" (or a derivative of that word) is borderline inappropriate. Of greater concern to me is the rather blatant BLP violation of the criticism section. Certainly the article could do with a thorough review. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Which should take place on the article talk page, which has bee requested multiple times. Also, this isn't a noticeboard. No one has, as far as I'm aware, advocated making this article an exception to any of our policies or guidelines. Here is a useful link: Talk:Matthias Rath Verbal chat 16:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP asked about use of the word "claim" (and variations) with respect to this policy, and I responded. In the case of the example given, I saw instances where the word was used appropriately, and instances where the word was used inappropriately. I also noted BLP violations since the OP mentioned BLP in his question. No need for the acerbic comment, Verbal. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No acerbity intended. This conversation should be continued at the appropriate article talk page, rather than this one. Verbal chat 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it here because it raises questions about the meaning of this part of the guideline. Guideline talk pages are often used to discuss specific articles where there is no notice board. This guideline should not be applied by rote. It makes clear that some uses are acceptable. I agree with Scjessey that "claim" is misapplied sometimes, although I also think it is applied correctly in other instances. An example of the former is the lead, which says "Rath claims that a program of nutritional supplements...can treat or cure... cancer, and HIV/AIDS." Here the word "claims" is used to belittle or denigrate his (apparent) life's work. The verifiable truth may be that his life work is worth denigrating, because it involves selling snake oil, but using loaded words like "claimed" is not the encyclopedic way to indicate that. Another, "Rath claims to have discovered" (either he announced a finding or he did not; what he said may not be a true discovery though). On the other hand, many uses of the word "claim" appear spot-on, such as "Rath claims that the uncontrolled release of degrading enzymes in cancer can be blocked by the natural amino acid". That is the assertion of a scientific finding, which is in a technical sense a "claim". Another technical use, this time a marketing claim: "(SKAK), an independent group...examined...the marketing claims made by Rath" and "advertisements by Rath contained a series of misleading and false claims". The word can also be used properly in a non-technical sense, where a statement of fact is offered in a context where it is disputed, unclear, or proven, and we need to differentiate it from merely reporting or conveying a fact: a manufacturer "claimed" something about the efficacy of its products. Changing these to "said" distorts and loses meaning, and looks awkward. In any event we are in the world of commercialized alternative medical treatments, which is the little sister to pseudoscience. Multiple editors reverted the article to its prior state, and it got protected for edit warring, so that should be a sign that the situation is not clearcut. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My query related to ‘Advice needed re. use of these guidelines’. Clearly, the right place to ask for such advice is here, not on the article’s talk page. I agree with Wikidemon that my query raises questions about the meaning of this part of the guideline. I also agree with Scjessey that the criticism section contains a rather blatant violation of WP:BLP. As Scjessey says, the article could do with a thorough review. Adrian CZ (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Adverbs

"Adverbs are rare in encyclopedic writing, because they are too easily used to express a point of view without providing a source for it." This statement strikes me as just plain wrong. The specific adverbs mentioned below it are reasonable, but this there a particular reason for this blanket statement? (I've looked through the talk archive and can't seem to find anything) There is absolutely nothing that is universally POV-pushing about any particular part of speech, and I'd wager a great deal that I could find a dozen or more adverbs in any Featured Article you care to name. I'm being bold and removing the statement now, but as always feel free to revert. Cool3 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't. This guideline is rapidly headed for trainwreck territory. What started out as a simple extension of good English style has been twisted into something that often crosses the line into censorship and recommendations for poor English style. Ray^Talk 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I arbitrarily took a quick look at a couple of FAs. The adverb that jumped out at me in both cases was "typically", an unsourced editorial generalization, albeit a fairly harmless one. I do think the use of adverbs requires care in general, so I've readded a less strongly worded header for the section to encourage those few editors who read this long guideline to think about it. Geometry guy 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They perhaps require more than care than other parts of speech, but a lot of words are adverbs and I have trouble thinking of how they could be misused. I'd like to point out that words like: "Now", "Then", "Ago", "Yesterday", etc. are adverbs (and I guess you could use those abusively but only in weird circumstances). I think that what we're really talking about here is specific adverbs like "typically", "normally", and the specific ones listed. Thus, I have made a one word change to your change making it "the use of certain adverbs requires care". I suppose my change isn't really necessary as it's just a matter of common sense, but it just sounds better. Cool3 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly doesn't refer to adverbs like "now". Adverbs are a a bit of a catch-all category, and it is only a particular class of adverbs that can be problematic. There ought to be a grammatical name for this class, but I can't find/recall it at the moment. Geometry guy 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"attitudinal adverbs" might be what you are looking for, as opposed to spatial, temporal, and frequency adverbs, among others. But this term might be too technical, and will not clarify much anyway Jasy jatere (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose statement.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. In general adjectives and adverbs should be avoided as much as possible. We should present the facts, not opinions of the facts.
7. 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Never use the word terrorist in wikipedia's voice, please. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Terrorism as a category

Some time ago, I proposed categories using the unqualified, unattributed use of terrorism/terrorist [for CFD]

Although the decision was made to keep the categories, the closing admin stated that: "Looking at Category:Terrorists, there seems to be a rather definitive definition there, as well as a strong reminder to cite all inclusions. A tightening of these definitions, and some dedicated work into finding sources, can clean these categories up in comparatively little time."

I can propose this this guideline article note that usage of the term terrorism in categories should either include attribution, or that the contents must meet conditions similar to those at Category:Terrorists, namely:

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
• Targeting civilians.
• Non-state actor, thus excluding state terrorism.
• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.

Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required; see terrorism for a list of alternative terms, with both positive and negative connotations.

This category should only be placed on articles which already have verifiable text that the individual has been identified as a terrorist.

If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate.

If there is no attribution in the category, and no definition to restrict the category, the possibilities for abuse are endless, and if you take a look around the subcategories of Category:Terrorism it's quite clear that such abuses already exist. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose; this is WP:OR. There is no agreed definition of "terrorism". It is a pejorative term applied to those whose violence we oppose. Might as well introduce a category called "untruths" or "good guys". Needless to say existing categories called "terrorism" should be removed. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, but since there have been at least three failed attempts to have them deleted, maybe would could mitigate the damage in the mean time? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that there is "no agreed definition of 'terrorism'". It may be perjorative, but it is not undefined. Look in any dictionary, and you will find the same definition: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." (American Heritage Dictionary). There are valid reasons for not using the term (WP:NPOV), but WP:NOR is simply not one of them. Cool3 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still original research to attribute the term based on our own assessment of the activities of an orgaisation. --neon white talk 12:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Admit, confess, deny

In relation to this section, should the words 'denialism', 'denialist' etc be avoided? They are often used perjoratively to an argument/proponent who argues against a long term widely held view and often suggest an inherent incorrectness to the argument. As we are required to present a NPOV, are the use of those academic bias? For instance if one is accused of being 'in denial' it means your rejecting an obvious truth but wikipedia doesn't believe in "the truth" just POVs so we cannot imply that there exists an obviously correct viewpoint that one is in denial of. --neon white talk 12:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the words are fine if they are sourced. We have an article on Denialism which seems decently sourced, "Holocaust denialism" and "Aids denialism" are commonly used terms (including use in academic literature), as is "Holocaust denial" and "Aids denial". But as editors we shouldn't be adding the word to describe people, we need to be using reliable and verifiable sources that use the word. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the point of this page at all. It seems to be saying "write good English, and be neutral". Now that simple instruction may of course be expanded into a list of terms of arbitrary length, but to whose benefit? The editors responsible for the crappy prose Wikipedia is so full of are never going to look at this page, and the people investing their time and skill in building and debating it already know how to write good prose.

In the case of "denialism", as with any other term, the proper thing to do is, use it as approrpiate: use it if it can be shown to see significant use in the sense you are going to use it, in quotable sources. So, "Aids denialism" is certainly ok, but, say, "Jesus denialism" is not. Easy, isn't it? --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dbachmann. We should report the phrases commonly used in reliable sources. Holocaust denial and Aids denial are both fringe theories, and both are described using the terms denial and denialism in reliable sources. A bad phrase would be "God denialism" (3 Google hits) or "Unicorn denialism" (1 hit), but "Climate denialism" gets hits in a handful of news sources. Fences and windows (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly we should not be applying such terms in the absence of reliable sources doing so ... but that applies to every edit ever, really. When the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources use a term, so should we. By way of analogy, there is no call to rename Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories despite conspiracy theory being a loaded term. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Global warming denial" and "Climate change denial" both get ~50000 hits on Google, much less than "Holocaust denial"(>1000000) but more than "AIDS denialism"(~20000). Larkusix (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Denialist is a labelling, but as a practical matter, in some cases it can be a fairly neutral label. Requiring a neutral point of view does not require us to be blind to the fact that some viewpoints are held only by fringe groups (i.e. Holocaust denialism), and "denialism" carries the connotation of somebody who denies the settled opinion of the overwhelming majority, which is a description of fact, not of a point of view. It should not be used for debates that are ongoing, where it is a prejudiced term that attempts to "settle" an unsettled debate, such as for global warming. As a practical matter, where reliable sources use the term uncontroversially and in a forthright manner, we can use it. Where it's used as a trick of political rhetoric or in an advocacy setting, it should be avoided. Ray^Talk 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the same way recognising fring views does not allow us to ditch NPOV and start applying negative loaded words to them. Denialism also carries the connotation not only that they deny the opinion of the majority but that they are incorrect in doing so and is often used by the status quo to censor opposing views that challenge the status quo which is not something a neutral article should doing. In my opinion it's completely fine for an article to unequivocally state the wealth and depth of opposition to such theories of revionists (which itself also has negative connotations though far less than denial) but should not be implying falsity. It should be noted that all mainstream theories began as fringe theories. Holocaust denial is a good example of an article that maintains neutrality by attributing the claims but how do we treat the same in a bio for instance? --neon white talk 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we differ on the meaning of "denialism." Using neutral language is a tricky business, but our obligation is not to avoid provoking such prejudices as may already exist in the eye of the reader, but merely to keep from introducing new ones. I draw my definition from wikt:denialism, which says simply "describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly." It may be that the reader is already predisposed to believe that somebody holding such a position is incorrect, but that is not implied by the straightforward use of the word. Rather, the word describes a set of factual, objective conditions about which the reader may have preconceived opinions. Similarly, to describe somebody as a "wikt:murderer" is accurate if they have unquestionably commited that crime. Any prejudice is in the mind of the reader, not in the language being used. In time, the language may change, but I choose to draw definitions from dictionaries and general usage, not the bleeding edge of political rhetoric. If we were to ban every word ever given a prejudiced alternative definition by political wordsmiths, we might as well abandon the English Wiki and write on the Simple Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 23:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really the definition that's the problem. It's essentially the same issue as all the words here. They all have factual definitions but some have negative value attached. It is a word levelled at opponents in a perjorative way and if we use it aren't we essentially 'taking sides' and considering a subject from a biased viewpoint? It's an opinion and should probably be attributed. I think it's important to specify clearly who uses the term in the article and who rejects it. THe same as terrorism etc. --neon white talk 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of words that are levelled at opponents in a pejorative way, and may carry negative baggage in the mind of the beholder. When the usage becomes sufficiently emotional with sufficient frequency, that can cross the line into biased language. However, I simply don't see "denial" or "denialism" as having crossed that line. I carry no bias against it, Wiktionary carries no bias against it, the OED entry for "denial" (no entry for denialism) does not mark it as a slur or a word with negative connotations. Such markings exist for commonly accepted slang or pejorative terms. If authorities on the language, and many editors, do not see a slant to the word, then we shouldn't assume there is one. I don't think we take a side when we use such a label, and various authorities on the language agree with me. You evidently disagree -- but, respectfully, I think your position is much closer to "I don't like it" than you may have realized. Ray^Talk 07:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Need", "must" and others

Most of these are words that describe things as they should be, rather than as they are, and seem rather inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Should they be added to the section about editorializing? SDY (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

while I can see the point, I wonder whether this has been a problem in the past? Could you cite a problematic use of these words? I can only find mathematical contexts which do not violate NPOV. IMHO there is no need for a section on this page which is better dealt with by WP:NPOV and WP:V anyway.Jasy jatere (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already too much of this kind of proscription in this guideline. I see no reason to add more. Verbal chat 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

These words aren't POV, i.e humans need air to survive or humans must breathe to survive etc Fahrenheit 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Burials

This is a brief suggestion for a style change regarding the language used to describe the internment of people's bodies. Comments are appreciated. (Crossposted at WT:EJ, WT:MOSB, WT:TTD, WT:EJ, and WT:WTA) -Stevertigo 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions

I'm glad to see this is such an active talk page. I'm hoping you folks that are regulars here can offer an opinion on the following section heading on the Susan Boyle article:

• "The Boyle phenomenon"

While I agree that it is an apt description in everyday language, I'm wondering if there would be a more encyclopedic phrasing that should be used. Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm .. I see that it's (the section heading) been removed in the very recent past, at least for now. However, I'm still interested in opinions on whether this is an appropriate heading for an encyclopedia article. thx. — Ched :  ?  22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it a term that has been used widely in the media? like 'beatlemania' for example. If so i'd say it's probably ok, if not i think i better term might be used. --neon white talk 11:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The word Claim "may be used inappropriately"

Currently the "claim" section gives editors permission to use the word claim "inappropriately", which is very nice but I don't think it is the intended meaning. However, I wont edit it as I think most of that section is gibberish. Verbal chat 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone missed it, this style guideline gives permission to use claim inappropriately. Claim: "It may also be used inappropriately". Which is contradicted by common sense and the rest of the section. Verbal chat 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See also the #Claim section higher up this page. --PBS (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an important difference between a descriptive statement and a prescriptive one. "The word can be used inappropriately" is plainly descriptive, as in "it is possible to use the word inappropriately." However, it's an easy fix to follow the descriptive statement up with a clearly prescriptive statement. Croctotheface (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists has been nominated for deletion

Following on from the discussion about WP:TERRORIST further up this page, Category:Terrorists has now been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Terrorists. Robofish (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Claim

The section on claim states "The term 'claimed' can also be misused to cast doubt on an assertion. This usage is especially apparent when one viewpoint is regarded as a 'claim', whereas another perspective is associated with a word, such as 'argument', 'demonstration', or 'belief, that implies a stronger or deeper engagement between the attributor and that which is attributed." Yet that is not what the OED says "'Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’. (F. Hall.)" So where does this Wikipedia claim/assertion originate?

The first example given is:

• Incorrect: "Politician Roberts claimed that American women did not have voting rights until 1970."

But how would be "Politician Roberts believed that American women did not have voting rights until 1970." be more assertive, or for that matter "Politician Roberts asserted that American women did not have voting rights until 1970."? --PBS (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to find sourcing for what someone believes - we know they said it, but in most cases the only source or someone's belief is a self-statement (which is unreliable) or an inference (which is OR). "Assert" is okay if it can actually be sourced as an assertion as opposed to a mere statement, but too many active verbs like that could make the prose too flowery. The provability, or truth, of the assertion is also a factor I think. Unless Roberts is making an obscure point that needs more context, it is pretty easy to establish what date American women actually got the vote. By contrast, something that is unprovable or about which the sources don't offer guidance is more likely to be a claim, e.g. Roberts claimed he was in Toledo at the time of the robbery (setting aside for the moment BLP concerns about discussing unproven allegations).Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. Given the OED definition (above) what is the difference between claimed and contend, maintain, asserted? Why object to "Politician Roberts claimed ..." and not to "Politician Roberts asserted ..."? what makes the former different from the latter to such an extent that we it is given as the first example. If I write "Y claimed a however Z asserted the b" is there any difference other than style with "Y asserted a however Z asserted the b". Or to simplify why is claim highlighted in this guideline?

One construct which might be considered unreasonable are these examples in the OED "A mere word or symbol claiming to be a proposition." and "It is claimed, then, on behalf of Christianity, that there is a Holy Ghost." (OED claim 2.b, while the above is from 2.c) but this type of construct would be equally problematic if one replaced 'claim with another similar word, eg pretending and asserted. In these example quotes it is the construction of the sentence not the specific use of the word claim that is the problem. --PBS (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if you look at the "Correct" statement below that one, I don't think the issue is the use of the world claim per se. It's just better to source where and when he made that claim. My instinct here is that if you use the verb "claim" then you're referring to a specific action, not a state of mind. Thus, any statement about a claim should be documented with a where and when. I agree that in the context of that sentence, though, using another word like assert or believe is no better, and maybe even worse. Cool3 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If one looks at the next example which is "dubious" it is dubious in a way similar to the examples I took from the OED, but it would be dubious with the word asserted there as well. I am coming round to the opinion that it is not the word claim that is a problem but the construction of an assertion of a fact followed by a personal denial of that fact leaves readers inclined to believe the fact and disbelieve the denial. But that also cuts both ways "When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, she replied, 'Well, he would, wouldn't he?'". But aren't we straying into Rhetoric rather than words to avoid? --PBS (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that there is word in rhetoric which describes this trick. Does anyone know what it is? --PBS (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think the main question to ask whenever there's a synonym for "said" is whether there is any value added by using the synonym instead of just using "said." I think that the example in the article would be better served with "Roberts said women didn't have voting rights until 1970" instead of using "claimed." However, the real issue with "claim" comes from other types of cases, as the word can cause the voice of the encyclopedia to cast doubt on a speaker. It shouldn't be used for any matter of opinion or for any fact that's in dispute. Croctotheface (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Stated" and "told" can work well as generally neutral synonyms of "said" without turning the thing they're saying into an assertion of fact or opinion. "Noted" works, too. They're not perfect drop-in replacements for "said" but a good editor can formulate a paragraph to sound really good without using words that cast aspersions like "asserted", "claimed" or "argued". Maybe there's a place for those sorts of words when the views of all parties are presented in the same way, but I don't know. Personally I think we should discourage but not outright deny the use of "claim" due to the very real possibility of misinterpretation, and provide some guidance on alternative terms that are more inherently neutral. Warren -talk- 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much 100% in agreement with you, though I don't think "stated" is particularly good writing most of the time it's used, and "noted" can have the same kind of problem as "reported," as it can give the "noter" an air of authority. Generally, though, I'm with you, and I think we should discourage using words like "claim" when "say" works as well or better. Croctotheface (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dislike noted; it's a wikt:factive verb and is frequently inappropriate. Repeated use of said may be boring, but at least it doesn't imply that the speaker was correct, like noted does. (I usually see editors using noted when replied or responded would be appropriate, and non-factive, substitutes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has really got me paying careful attention to news articles today, to see how they present things that people say. In articles like this one from BBC World News, the use of "said" is predominant, and there was also a case of "told". This article uses "added" as well.

WhatamIdoing, your point about "noted" is noted... (sorry, couldn't resist :-)) ... I suspect we'd have to brainstorm a good way of presenting appropriate and inappropriate uses of the word "noted".... for example, could we describe someone as a "Noted historian Warren said _____", but not say "Historian Warren noted that _____"? Hmmmmm. Tricky. I really don't know if we need to split hairs that finely, but I'dllhave to think about it some more, and I'd like to hear some other opinions on the matter. Warren -talk- 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's splitting hairs so much; the issue is what value is added by using synonyms for said rather than just said. The prevalance of "said" in print journalism, rather than any of these other loaded words, speaks to the fact that it gets the job done in a way that basically no other word does. The only real value I can see is avoiding the "boring" nature of said, but the only reason that "said" is boring is that it's neutral. All these more interesting words are more interesting because they add a different spin, but that's fundamentally opinionated, which is obviously a no-no. Croctotheface (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The value added is a more enjoyable encyclopedia. If we can maintain neutrality while keeping the writing interesting and engaging, then we're doing a better job than if we adopted the most boring approach possible. That's why I think words like "told", "added", "stated" and the like could have a use. "Stated", in particular, should be used in conjunction with press releases ("Company X stated in a press release that Y"), and other formal methods of communication ("A spokesperson for Company X stated that Y").

The dictionary definition of the word suggests that the word "stated" can be used for any kind of definitive or specific declaration, e.g. She stated her position on the case; to state a problem. Warren -talk- 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But as I said, this guideline very specifically seeks to disavow the notion that avoiding "said" because it's "boring" (or less "enjoyable") is not reason to abandon neutrality. However, I see that this time around, you're no long advocating for "noted," and the words you describe aren't so bad, though I think added can suffer from a lesser form of the same issue as "noted". I really dislike "stated" for anything other than an official statement; I really think it's a myth that "stated" is more interesting than "said". I think "told" is fine in the sense of "Politician Roberts told the Wall Street Journal", but my basic message here is be careful. The guideline does a good job describing the dangers of unintentionally conveying opinion when you make these kinds of changes because of the admirable goal of creating more varied prose. Croctotheface (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I said I am female. It is an utterance I made and is true. I claimed I am a female impersonator. It is an utterance I made but is not true. I asserted my rights to wear female clothing (utterance and I can prove it with references to laws). The word "claim" is not neutral; the connotation is always there that the utterance is not true. It also has connotations of maintaining a stance or POV, not just stating it once (as per "said" or "stated"). The word "claim" has its place; it should not be banned. Where the untruth of the "claim" is the writer's opinion, it should be changed. When the truth is known or proven, and is relevant to the story (eg subsequent attacks on Politician Roberts because of his claims) it is the right word to use.KoolerStill (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(removing indents) It really is not the right word to use in that case. It's much easier and more netural to quote someone who makes an untrue statement and then say (or even better, to show) that the statement is wrong. Using a word because it carries certain connotations (not even denotations) to try to communicate those concepts in a roundabout way is not our best practice for cases like this. Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Research as a section heading

I have ultimately decided that I disagree with the recently added advice against ==Research== as a section heading. In some, perhaps many, instances, this heading is perfectly appropriate and not subject to misunderstanding. Consider, for example, a biography about a researcher: the contents of such a section ought to be perfectly obvious, to the point that a longer heading, like ==Research conducted by John Smith== would be silly.

(The advice:) Sections containing many references to various studies are preferably not simply titled "Research" without further specification. Unless the contents relate to principles or techniques in researching, and could fit into the main article of Research, the titles of such sections are better specified with what the studies and their results are aimed at. "Research" alone tend to make the section a growing unorganized dump of random studies that may be linked to the subject.

Furthermore, I don't think that an ambiguous heading (is ==Research== in an article about, say, a virus, going to tell the reader about past publications, experiments underway now, or about future directions in the field?) is inherently a POV problem or insulting, which are the points behind everything else on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. --PBS (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this advice should be added to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article and section titles:

This does a great favor to the reader, who probably prefers to know the relevance of the studies for the subject at hand rather than the research itself. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Again:

This is good advice in many cases.

This is bad advice in some cases.

This advice has nothing to do with the subject of this page.

Therefore it should not be added to this page.

Before you try again: IMO there is no possible way to re-write this advice about using good editorial judgment to produce a well-written article (an objective good) will become advice against POV-pushing and needlessly insulting people (the subject of this page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree there may be a possibility that such specification of section name could be counterproductive. However, I haven't found a single example of such a case ever. Even "Research" in articles of people is better more specified to what subject was the target. For example, I don't think the section "Annus Mirabilis and special relativity" in the Albert Einstein article should be renamed "Research". And I don't see why this advice wouldn't fit in "Article and section titles [to avoid]". If this page in fact is about "Avoiding POV-pushing and needlessly insulting people", then I think it should be renamed to that. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How would you summarize the current contents of that section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently: "Article and section titles to avoid (in order not to push POV)", and it doesn't exclude having it "Article and section titles to avoid (in order not to push POV and cause disorganized sections)". Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also summarize this section that way. I suspect that you and I would agree that the entire page would be summarized as "____ to avoid (in order not to push POV)."

True: we could, if everyone agreed, expand the scope of the page to include general tips on good writing, but it would be a significant expansion that takes the page into areas that are entirely unrelated to its current purpose. Why not take this idea to a page that is better suited to general good-writing advice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support expanding the scope beyond pushing POV. Still, that's a separate issue, and until any such change I find it acceptable to have the advice placed somewhere else. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. So the heading says (my italics). It is not, nor has been, exclusively about NPOV. Sure we have one large section entitled Words that my advance a point of view, but even that section is not concentrated on point of view pushing as much as it is concentrated on helping editors to avoid inadvertantly advancing a point of view through careless word choice.

That's the whole focus of this guideline: encouraging care with words. As such it is not, and does not need to be a list of every word that has ever been misused, nor by extension, is it a list of every inappropriate section heading. Instead it needs to provide enough guidance and enough exemplars that editors can decide for themselves whether they are using words well, or could choose their words better. This goes for section headings too. Is there a problem with headings like "research" which has not been considered by this guideline. If so, what are they? Adding text which says "don't do this" is rather pointless unless you explain why. Nobody reads the instructions, especially long ones. Geometry guy 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter very much to me whether this "Research"-advice is eligible to be included specifically on this page or anywhere else. I dislike such headings because they attract miscellaneous studies about the subject which could better be integrated into the article. The latest example I found (today) is Probiotic#Research. I think most people reading that article want to know "what are the benefits/disadvantages of probiotic products?" and not "what research has been done on the subject". The "Research" section has become a dump of studies that could very well have fitted into existing "Benefits" or "Adverse effects". I can find better examples out there on request - this one hasn't grown to really tedious size yet.

Furthermore, it isn't a catastrophe if not every editor finds and reads the rule. Still, I'd like to know if there is the least consensus on discouraging such section naming - it would be pointless for me to start to integrate such content into the rest of the articles if there are other editors who support "Research"-sections and start them anew. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest it at WT:MEDMOS? It's much more relevant to science-related articles than to, say, biographies, and it might fit in with either WP:MEDMOS#Writing_style or WP:MEDMOS#Trivia (two sections that may want merging anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Seems like the optimal place to have it.Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The more complicated terrorist issue

I think it is fairly clear from the section above that there is a broad consensus against using terrorist as an unqualified term in the context of an article like Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc. There is general agreement that it is much better to say who considers the group/person/act to be terrorist in nature. Similarly, it appears to be a matter of no controversy that the word terrorism is appropriate in the article on Terrorism or War on Terrorism.

I am afraid, however, that we have neglected several other ways of using the word terrorist that may be much more controversial. I don't mean for this list to be exhaustive, but I've grouped together a few such categories for you to have a look at.

Use when the subject of the article considers it to be so

Consider, for example, the article on the United States Department of the Treasury. From the article: "Congress transfered several agencies which had previously been under the aegis of the Treasury department to other departments as a consequence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Clearly from the perspective of the US Government, and thus the Department of the Treasury, 9/11 was a terrorist act. Thus, it seems appropriate to use the word "terrorist" here, although doing so is a form of labeling that is not completely agreed on. We could simply say "September 11, 2001 attacks", but that leaves something out. The Department of the Treasury was changed because Congress, the President, and the American people considered 9/11 an act of terrorism.

Take a look also at New York City Police Department#Line of duty deaths which lists 24 deaths of NYPD officers due to "terrorist attack". Clearly in the eyes of the NYPD, all of those incidents were acts of terrorism. Nonetheless, not everyone would have considered them terrorism. Is it then appropriate to call them "Terrorist attack"? Do we have to say "alleged terrorist attack"?

There is no difficulty here. The treasury article should not refer to the attacks with that language. The article on these attacks, September 11 attacks, does not use the word "terrorist" in the title. Nor do any of the many daughter articles, such as Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks and Casualties of the September 11 attacks. The word "terrorist" is used within these articles in Wikipedia's voice, and so these will need to be cleaned up. Every instance of the use of "terrorist" should really have attribution, unless the word is part of an organization, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The first of those (which you addressed) is the clearer one. What about in the NYPD article? Cool3 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem does not arise, because the labels have attribution (see link at the top of the table, the source of the information). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can attribute the phrase "September 11 terrorist attacks". As a matter of fact I can attribute it to 478,000 different sources in exactly that wording ([32]). Does that mean I can say September 11 Terrorist Attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

That is the essence of the discussion here. My answer would be a definite no. Some people would say "yes", but only if a specific citation was provided. The problem with that approach is that a citation should be provided for every use of the word - that's why it is better to avoid the word completely (which is why this page is called "words to avoid", I suppose). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew your answer would be no. So my point is, why is it okay to say it because of the attribution in the NYPD case, but not in the 9/11 case? Cool3 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because in the NYPD example, it is the NYPD saying "terrorism". In the 9/11 example, it is Wikipedia saying "terrorist". You see the difference? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. In the 9/11 case it was the US government of which the Dept. of the Treasury is a part calling 9/11 terrorist. Where's the difference? Cool3 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Er... no. That's Wikipedia's voice. In fact, the link in that article redirects to the less POV title "September 11 attacks". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion, if I just put a <ref> Something </ref> next to that in Dept. of the Treasury article it's no longer Wikipedia's voice? The NYPD chart that we are discussing has nothing more than a reference. "Terrorist attack" isn't in quotation marks or anything. Cool3 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well being a table, it's sort of a special case (so not a great example). You could describe the entire table as a referenced quotation. In fact, I'm not entirely happy with what has been done there, and it sort of seems like a form of synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, the table is more acceptable because it's not calling anyone or anything specific a terrorist? Just a thought based on some things below. Cool3 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful about making too much of an occasional use of the word. A single instance of a single government actor using the word terrorism is not necessarily an official decision by the agency. A closer case where the community decided to mention that the government calls a group terrorist without saying so in Wikipedia's voice and without calling it a designation: The FBI, in a "blast from the past" history page,[33] (pun intended - they use the far worse pun, "byte" from the past) the FBI refers to the Weatherman Organization as "domestic terrorists" - a label that many including the former group members deny. Elsewhere the FBI calls them "homegrown terrorists". However, this is not an official designation because although such a list exists today there was no official FBI roster of terrorists when the group existed, and the FBI does not see fit to add disbanded groups to the list. Poking around, the FBI and its high officials call the group "terrorist" in quite a few very visible places and in speeches, so I think it's safe to conclude that this is an official FBI position, not just a random thing somebody said once. If the NYPD calls people terrorists, you would have to look at several issues closely: is it an official position they are taking, is it an official designation or list, is this list noteworthy, is the fact that this particular agency takes this particular position really relevant to the subject of the article, and then the usual WP:RS / WP:PSTS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, etc., concerns. Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We must never allow the word be applied to anyone as a fact; it is always a perjoritive term. People have claimed that they were Nazis many times; nobody has ever, to my knowledge, claimed they were a "terrorist". Example of the Pandora's Box we could open here: in whole swathes of the globe the MSM refers to Israeli/American soldiers as terrorists (and worse) - imagine trying to get references to "Jewish terrorists", "Zionist terrorists" or "American terrorists" into Wiki articles about the ME on the basis that it's what the local Arabic MSM calls them? Sarah777 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Going to great pains not to refer to a terrorist individual or organization as "terrorist" seems absurd for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should refer to a thing as what it is, it should not worry about whether someone may consider that thing to be a pejorative or not. The encyclopedia is not judging; it is classifying. See Wikipedia:SPADE and the Duck test referenced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.198.220 (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Use as shorthand

This is probably less likely to be acceptable, but it's still another category where it may be legitimate to use the term terrorist. When a relatively large number of people consider a group/person/act to be terrorism, is it appropriate to refer to it as terrorism in unrelated articles where "covering the controversy" would take an unreasonable amount of space? For example, in an article on Simon Reeve (UK television presenter), the following sentence "Published in the UK and USA in the late 1990s, The New Jackals was the first book on bin Laden. Classified information cited by Reeve detailed the existence, development, and aims of the terrorist group al-Qaeda." It's far too wordy and confusing to say "the group al-Qaeda which x,y, and z consider a terrorist organization but a,b, and c do not" and it just detracts from what is actually being discussed. Similarly, if we just say "the group al-Qaeda", we're not providing the reader with enough information. The reader gets no sense of what al-Qaeda is, or the significance of it, unless some sort of identifier is used. In this context "terrorist" gives the reader some context, and if he wants the full story, he can go to to the full article.

Take a second case (hypothetical). Person X supplied money to Hezbollah and ended up in legal trouble as a result. The article reads "X was investigated by the police for providing money to the terrorist group Hezbollah." If this is changed to just "X was investigated by the police for providing money to Hezbollah", it doesn't make any sense at all if you don't know what Hezbollah is. You think, what's wrong with giving money to Hezbollah? Similarly, in this context it distracts from the main point to "cover the controversy", if the article goes on about how Hezbollah may or may not be a terrorist group, you'd come away thinking, so why did the police investigate him if not everyone thinks they're a terrorist group?

Yet in practice, there will nearly always be ways around the problem. "Reeve detailed the activities of al-Qaeda, considered by many to be a growing terrorist threat." "X gave money to Hezbollah, which the Brobdingnagian government had ruled an illegal terrorist group." With sources, of course. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no problem. The offending sentence should be changed to say: "Classified information cited by Reeve detailed the existence, development, and aims of al-Qaeda." We have blue links that lead to the additional information that you are concerned the reader might not be getting. There is no need for Wikipedia to characterize the group. The same applies to the Hezbollah thing. I have no idea what you mean by "it doesn't make any sense." It makes sense to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A good article tells you everything you need to know about the subject without having to click on the links. So, I think there is an imperative to provide some summary. Pretend you've never heard of Hezbollah. Now you see "X was sent to prison for giving money to Hezbollah". If no explanation is offered as to why, then I'd be pretty darn confused. Sure, I could click on the link, but if we just let you get all your information from the links, then our articles would be a lot shorter. A good article summarizes everything that is relevant. Cool3 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not the definition of a good article. That way of thinking has been a major problem for Wikipedia, and the result is ridiculously long articles - the opposite of what you claim. You end up with shocking redundancy, where the same details are repeated over and over again in multiple articles. Blue links rock! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to direct you to the featured article criteria, specifically 1 b : "It is ... comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Cool3 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Context" is a very ambiguous term though. Consider the following (admittedly ridiculous) example:

The attackers flew a plane into a building. Buildings are man-made structures used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy. Planes are heavier-than-air aircraft capable of flight whose lift is generated not by wing motion relative to the aircraft, but by forward motion through the air. A wing is a surface used to produce lift for flight through the air or another gaseous or fluid medium.

You see where I'm going with this? "The attackers flew a plane into a building" is better. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point that how much context is necessary is subjective. If every article gave all the context, then there would only be one article and it would contain everything. I suppose, then, that our disagreement centers around whether or not it's relevant context to say in the example that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I maintain that it is. Without that information, I have no idea why X got in trouble. Thinking about it more, though, this may not be the best example as you could always just say if X is British "which the British government considers to be a terrorist organization" which gives even better information. Personally, I'm not really in favor of using the word terrorist in this sense most of the time, I was just trying to start the discussion, and this seemed like one possible category. Cool3 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - great minds think alike) Yes and no. First, most articles are not featured articles, and cherry-picking an aspect of a featured article for context on the specific point of terrorism leads to an undue emphasis on terrorism. More importantly, adding context does not mean fully explaining everything. Complete context would mean putting the entirety of Wikipedia in every article because every fact is connected one way or another to every other fact in the world. I've found that the best way to handle wikilinks is to explain two things via the link and surrounding text: (1) identifying the subject of the link, and (2) specifying only the additional information that is unique or relevant to its association to the subject of the article. For example, suppose for some reason it is useful in an article to note that Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of Tiger Woods (I just made this up, please don't look for any special significance here). Most people in the world have heard of Tiger Woods so to satisfy issue #1, identification, the link alone is probably sufficient. However, if we needed more information to add to the link to identify him, we could say something like "American golfer [[Tiger Woods]]". We do not need to introduce him with unnecessary phrases like "biracial American golfer [[Tiger Woods]]" or "American golfer and 2007 PGA tour leader [[Tiger Woods]]".... or (you know where I'm going with this, don't you?)... "Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of biracial American golfer, 2007 PGA tour leader, and unrepentant terrorist [[Tiger Woods]]". Regarding point #2, context, we might say something like "Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of [[Tiger Woods]], who shared her love for collecting golf memorabilia..." but not add a coatrack statement about terrorism. It would truly have to be relevant. I hope that conveys the point. Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance should be a factor. If Person X is charged with giving money to Hezbollah, it is because there is a local law against giving material aid to a terrorist organisation (as locally legally defined) NOT to a group named Hezbollah (or John's Club). So "charged with aiding the terrorist organisation Hezbollah" explains WHY the X was charged, and puts into context which one he helped (Hezbollah, not Hamas or the IRA). The link to Hezbollah can then explain the circumstances of how they got to be so designated in that country.

While I agree every phrase cannot be explained in every article, each one should make sense on its own. Every second word being a link (taking ages to load and taking the reader on excessively detailed detours) makes articles unintelligible for those not already familiar with the topic in its broad outlines. A simple "terrorist group" before a name (or "bollywood actor" or "disgraced businessman" or "convicted killer")saves the reader a lot of link-flipping to get the gist. KoolerStill (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Use for listing

It would be pretty uncontroversial to say in an article: "Professor X is a respected scholar of terrorism and terrorist groups". That's what Professor X does for a living and it's just a fact. If, however, you add more information to the article, it could become a problem. What if you say "Professor X is a respected scholar of terrorist groups, such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army." Not everyone agrees that the IRA is a terrorist group, but in the context of the article it makes sense to write this way. Professor X is a scholar of terrorism and he studies the IRA.

Well, I'll leave these for your thoughts and responses, but I think they really do need dealing with as they're likely to be less clear than what we've been discussing so far. Cool3 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the "what if" question here is simple. You don't. There is no need to provide an example. Examples are provided in the articles covering terrorism. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So if a terrorism scholar studies the IRA, we just leave that out? Cool3 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Addendum: To be clear, the above was referring not to a scholar who studies all groups, but rather to someone who specializes in one group. Sorry, re-reading what I wrote, I see that didn't come through. Take the sentence "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups who focuses his research on the IRA". Cool3 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an unlikely construct. You might describe someone as a scholar of terrorism (if they are described thus by a reliable source), and then separately note the organizations that scholar studies. It sounds like a long winded way of doing it, but it ensures that Wikipedia does get involved in characterizing organizations. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your edited comment, "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups who focuses his research on the IRA," sounds reasonable, but in fact it isn't. The two clauses should be separated at the very least. "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups. The focus of his research is the IRA". Even then, both sentences would need citations. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups who focuses his research on U.S. diplomacy" would not, to most people, imply that U.S. diplomats are terrorists - we would presume he was studying diplomatic responses to terrorism, or perhaps diplomats as victims. The IRA example given by Scjessey really only carries an implication for readers who are determined to find one (either to agree with or to argue with). Barnabypage (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure you can cite both sentences and stick a period in there, but there is still an obvious implication to it that the IRA is a terrorist group. Cool3 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I would not do it that way. It's lazy writing. The problem can be easily avoided by writing around it. For example, "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups. The focus of his research is the IRA, a group which he describes as a terrorist organization." -- Scjessey (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's the way to go, but it seems like overkill. If X is a terrorism scholar, it's quite obvious that he would study groups that he considers terrorist organizations. That said, perhaps we do have to throw in the extra clause for the sake of NPOV. Cool3 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Either the scholar is a sociologist/politologist and studies "terrorismology". In this case it is perfectly normal to also study boarderline case like the Résistance, or "liberation groups" in general, since they are tightly interwoven with "terrorists". An example sentence might be: "X is a sociologist specializing in terrorism, liberation groups and related phenomena. He concentrates on the Northern Irish conflict. ... " Another possibility is that the scholar is a historian, who does not care much about theoretical approaches to terrorism. In this case, well, don't mention terrorism. "X is a historian specializing in the Northern Irish conflict with a special focus on the IRA, its history and development." One could add "He argues that the IRA is (not) a terrorist group because blabla". That should solve all problems of POV by a) giving a wider context in the first case and b) attribution in the second one. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't see the difference

If the word terrorist is so controversial, why is it uncontroversial to say in an article: "Professor X is a respected scholar of terrorism and terrorist groups"? All the reader has to do is look at the groups Professor X studies, and know that by definition they are terrorist groups. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You really don't think we should say "Professor X studies terrorism?" It is a simple and uncontroversial fact that there is such a thing as terrorism (which is why for example we have an article on it). What's controversial is what things/people/groups/events/etc qualify as terrorism. In the academic community they don't have the same rules that we do about NPOV, so someone like Bruce Hoffman is called a terrorism scholar and he classifies some people/groups as terrorism on a professional basis. If we don't call him a terrorism scholar, then what on earth is he? Or am I just totally out of line with what other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing wrong with saying "Professor X studies terrorism," and I don't think Matisse is suggesting otherwise. The problem comes with a sentence like "Professor X studies terrorism, such as the Mumbai attacks." That "inadvertently" labels the Mumbai attacks as an act of terrorism. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we avoid it though? Cool3 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

By writing it properly in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my question. How do properly write an article about someone who studies terrorism and focuses on the Mumbai attacks without saying or implying that the Mumbai attacks were terrorism? I suggest, however, that as this discussion largely mirrors what we are saying directly above, that we pick one thread or the other and consolidate further discussion there. Cool3 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An example for you. Setting aside the matter of ungainly prose, it might be okay to say "Perez Hilton writes frequently about embarrassing things stars do", but I think it would be a BLP violation, and a statement of opinion to be avoided, to say "Perez Hilton writes frequently about embarrassing things stars like Lindsey Lohan do." If per the weight of the sources a professor truly does have a research concentration on terrorism, why not say so? Saying so does not endorse his opinions, or call anyone a terrorist except in the most indirect way. I suspect that is less common than one might think - professors probably avoid loaded words in describing their research for the same reason we do, they want to stick to the facts. This probably comes up in a lot of other instances. Some professors study mental illness, some study moral corruption, some study criminality, and some study infidelity or lying. Professors study lots of things that one probably should not call people on Wikipedia in most cases.Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So we agree, then, that is acceptable to say "Professor X studies terrorism", right? Cool3 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, because it does not specifically label anyone or any group. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be no problem with any wording as long as the sources are reliable and the article sticks to WP:ASF. This applies to every article and i fail to see why these are any different if the label of 'terrorism' is to be considered an opinion only. --neon white talk 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should say "X studies terrorism and related phenomena". This would take away the problems of implication, and every serious scholar of terrorism should also consider boarderline cases to delimit the topic of his study. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be other, more precise formulations as well, depending on the nature of the research, "X studies asymmetrical warfare", "X studies postcolonial independence movements", "X studies identity formation and conflicts in the postmodern context", "X studies the social conditions leading to armed conflicts", "X studies strategies to oppose terrorist tactics", "X studies foreign policy options to minimize threats for the US". The sloppy "X studies terrorism" does not sound very scientific to me, it is too broad. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism studies is an academic subject [34]. --neon white talk 12:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that program study terrorism in the abstract, or does it analyze concrete examples e.g. specific groups? If specific groups are analyzed, then could we use such programs and scholars to define what groups are considered terrorist? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters. It just seems reasonable when talking about someone's background to say they studied for a masters in terrorism studies at X university. I am certain that it would be impossible to study terrorism, whether within a law or socialogy context, to avoid case studies of particular groups or persons. The major point is that if an expert on such a subject referred to a group as 'terrorist' then what grounds do we have for not attributing a noteworthy opinion or the legal standing of groups or persons in US or any other jurisdiction as part of an article as opposed to ignoring it because a 'banned' term is used. Where does it leave article like Charities accused of ties to terrorism? --neon white talk 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All that matters is this: Wikipedia must not label people or groups as terrorists. Nor should it label attacks as terrorism. The label must come from an external source with the appropriate citation. Wikipedia must remain completely neutral, or lose credibility. So instead of "X is a terrorist," Wikipedia should say "X has been described by Y as a terrorist," cited appropriately. Instead of "X committed acts of terror," Wikipedia should say "Acts committed by X were described by Y as terrorism," cited appropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all covered in core policy. If there is controversy or dispute, cover that in the article. --neon white talk 15:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to that argument, and its the only compelling one so far. However, WTA's reason for existence is precisely as an extension of WP:NPOV, a clarification of generally accepted principles - there is no incompatibility between core policy, and guidelines that interpreted. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no reason for any guideline to exist: the community overwhelmingly agree this is a Bad Idea, WP:CREEP be damned. And as long as it does, WP:TERRORISM would make sense. However, the other points you have raised are irrelevant: we can always follow the only rule that matters: WP:IAR. I am all for consensus.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

All I believe that there needs to be a distinct description of the word choice that is used throughout Wikipedia. People can confuse terms or may get offended by the use of certain terms. I am new to Wikipedia, but I would not want to offend anyone when I make a comment or post to an article. Are the guidelines "clearly" stated in the Wikipedia policy? If not, how can we make them better? P!nkPolkaDots (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here starts with Prof X. He needs to be described as studying what he calls "terrorism". Then you can talk about the organisations he studies. If he studies the IRA and the IRA is not a terrorist group, then you are saying "Prof X studies terrorism; amongst the organisations he studies are the Red Cross and Mother Thereas's Order". You can't state that he is studying 'terrorism' without implying the groups he studies are terrorist; hence his claim/beleif that what he is studying is terrorism must be stated as merely a claim he makes (or is made in relation to him). Sarah777 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)