Talk:September 11 attacks/"Terrorist" archive

Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks

Protection

This page has been protected by User:Mirv as two editors were in a revert war over one word (suicide v terrorist). Those two editors are not discussing their dispute on this talk page, so the chances of it being resolved by community consensus are nil (though it may, of course, potentially get solved another way). IMHO the protection of a whole article, particularly one as popular as this one, delays its development and is against the spirit of wikipedia. I note particularly that if two editors are arguing over just one word, the article is still stable and available to everyone so that improvements can be put through. The only disadvantage as far as I can see is that the history is messy. I've added a request for unprotection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but it hasn't been actioned yet. Anyone else out there with thoughts on this? jguk 20:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't the dispute be resolved by noting that it was a suicide attack *and* a terrorist attack, or a suicide attack by a terrorist organization? Both adjectives certainly fit the bill. e.g. "The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by the Islamic terrorist organization al-Qaeda." or something of the sort. It would require the first paragraph to be rewritten to probably flow more smoothly, but I'm not sure if that would mediate things. TheProject 02:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should read the article; there are no groups who have actually claimed that they did it Woofles 15:21, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps not necessarily by the organization by itself, but certainly by members of the group. (I'm basing this off of the second line of the article as it stands right now.) The group is, however, definitely a terrorist organization by definition: it uses terror systematically to intimidate and cause fear. TheProject 16:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not all the attacks talked about in the article were indisputably terrorism. Apparently even the fact that the attack was coordinated by al-Qaeda is disputed. anthony (see warning) 18:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this edit war, so I'll just comment from the outside. Suicide attacks is POV. The hijackers saw themselves as devout Muslims to whom suicide is forbidden. They and their supporters would certainly not use the word 'suicide', perhaps using the terms 'martyr' and 'martyrdom' instead. For the life of me, I can't see what's wrong with just using the word 'attacks' in the first sentence without using either 'suicide' or 'terrorist' before it. jguk 18:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Mainly that it wasn't a series of attacks, it was a single coordinated attack. anthony 警告 19:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Great "Terrorism" Debate

In case anyone missed it, there's been an edit-war here on whether to refer to the 9/11 attacks as "terrorist attacks" or not. There are also edit-scirmishes on Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, 9/11 Commission, and others. I thought I'd bring the debate to one central location.

Overview

Some people think refering to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" is POV. Others think it's a factual statement.

Arguments for calling them "terrorist attacks"

1. In the words of VV, "9/11 was a terrorist attack; it does not possess any of the ambiguities which other cases do."

2. In the words of 198, "Even Prince Badar stated the attacks were terrorist."

3. I note that we have Category:Terrorists and other similar articles and categories, so the term is not used consistently.

4. Terrorism, noun. (Threats of) violent action for political purposes (Cambridge International), somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes (Encarta World Dictionary), the systematic use of terror (Merriam-Webster). The actions were violent and intimidating; by definition these attacks are certainly acts of terrorism. TheProject 16:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

5. There seems to be no definition of terrorism under which the WTC attack does not fit.

Rebuttals

1. There are many ambiguities. See below.

2. No matter how many people refer to an attack as a terrorist attack, that doesn't make it NPOV.

3. Those categories and articles should be renamed. We should consistently on use the term "terrorist" when reporting others' opinions.

4. By many of those definitions, U.S. action in WWII was terrorism. We're not going to call D-Day a terrorist attack, but it did use violence for a political purpose. (This is wrong. U.S. action in WWII did not use violence for controlling the enemy psychologically, but physically. In specific, terrorism is psychological control through fear imposited on the targets.)

IIRC, violence in (conventional) wars are not considered part of terrorism. Could be wrong though. TheProject 04:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

5. The Pentagon was a military target.

Arguments against calling them "terrorist attacks"

1. There are enough ambiguities that we can't state the term as fact. For instance, one definition of "terrorist attack" might be "an attack designed to instill fear in a population, to acheive a political objective." That's a perfectly reasonable definition. But there's no evidence of what al-Qaida's motivations were. Perhaps they didn't want to instill fear; perhaps it was an intentionally provocative attack. Maybe bin Laden wanted to goad the U.S. into counter-attacking, so that a jihad would result. If so, then the objective wasn't to instill fear, but to instill anger. So by the definition above, it wouldn't be terrorism.

Or someone else might say that terrorism requires that the targets be innocent civilians who are not taking part in the conflict. But the Pentagon attack wasn't against a non-military target. And some would say that the people in the WTC were passively taking part in the conflict (between the U.S. and the Muslim world) by passively contributing to the "American system". I think that's a cop-out, personally, but we can't state as a fact that the attacks were "terrorist" attacks if it can't be shown to be a fact. And since the word "terrorist" does not have a definition that most people agree on, it isn't factual, it's an opinion.

2. We can say something like this, and stay NPOV: "The attacks were widely described in the international press as 'terrorist attacks'." No info is lost.

3. Reuters, one of the two most trusted news agencies in the world, doesn't use the word "terrorism" to describe the 9/11 attacks either. They explain:

We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news. However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts. . . Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly.

4. The article on Terrorism says:

The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted, as these terms (and historically, other terms like them) are often used in propaganda to drum up support in opposition to the designated "terrorists."

Nations that support forms of organized violence (particularly where citizens are affected) will tend to dissociate itself from the term, by using neutral or even positive terms to characterize its combatants – such as soldiers, freedom fighters, all of which can be ambiguous terms for describing terrorist actors.

It also makes clear that there is not a definition of the term that most commentators agree on.

5. Calling something terrorism is walking on shaky ground considering that the term is suspiciously absent in U.S. state actions (such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq). Inconsistent labelling means a possible NPOV breach, and should be avoided at all cost.

Rebuttals

1. In response to point 1 above, even though there may not be a definition that suits everybody, several major dictionaries agree on a few major points about terrorism (and none of them mention innocent civilians). In particular, the USS Cole attack is widely considered (by US media) to be terrorism; however those on board the USS Cole were not civilians. See the point 5 under "Arguments For"; according to the definitions of three major dictionaries, the 9/11 attacks should be called terrorism. TheProject 16:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the Pentagon could be considered as a military target, but the hijacking of a civilian aircraft and using it with its load of innocent civilian passengers as a guided missile into the pentagon was terrorism pure and simple. -Vsmith 17:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, if killing the passengers was the intention. But if the intention was just to hit the Pentagon, and the civilians in the aircraft were just necessary losses to acheive that goal, then they were mere collateral damage. (Just like when the U.S. bombs a building where a terrorist is hiding, and we know civilians in the surrounding buildings will die too.)

This may seem like splitting hairs, but the reason it's important is that every proposed definition of terrorism I know of requires the terrorist's intent to be something specific. If we don't know for sure what the terrorists' intentions were, then we don't know for sure that they were terrorists. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:41, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• In my view, in order to maintain NPOV, we can't simply state that the attacks were terrorist, even if everyone here believes they were. Just like we can't factually state that the Nazis were wrong. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:52, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Wrong" is a moral judgement. "Terrorist" is a statement of fact. Saying the Nazis committed genocide would be factual, even if "genocide" has negative connotations just as "terrorism" does. VeryVerily 11:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• The Pentagon is a military target, so you could make a case that it's not "terrorism" in a strict sense. However, you can't say that the World Trade Center attack wasn't terrorism unless you're prepared to just say that there is no such thing as terrorism. It deliberately targeted civilians, with political goals, outside the context of warfare, in a manner designed to maximize symbolic value and publicity. In answer to the question raised about motives: there are plenty of targets Al Qaeda could have hit if what they wanted to do was kill Armericans, hurt the U.S. economy, or damage U.S. military capability (which the WTC attack didn't do.) They chose New York City and the World Trade Center because it's a high visibility, symbolic targets that would get plenty of publicity. How is this not terrorism? Reuters prefers to avoid the term because it offends some people, but inoffensive and NPOV are not the same thing. Isomorphic 13:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • After some consideration, I can't believe what I wrote above. The Pentagon was a military target. However, the airplane full of people that were used as a weapon in that attack were not a military target. Hence, both attacks are terrorism by pretty much any definition you could have. Isomorphic 16:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I don't feel strongly either way, but has anyone said the attacks were not by terrrorists? Is anyone actually disagreeing, or just not liking the word or label in general? Maurreen 14:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) And, were people terrorized? Maurreen 17:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I think it's clear that what bothers us is not the denotation of 'terrorist', which is in and of itself not a big deal - we can come to some sort of reasonable agreement about what we mean by this word, perhaps. What is problematic is that 'terrorist' is an encyphered moral judgement - it codes for 'evil' in modern parlance. We would like to be dry and clinical in our usage of the word, but this is simply not possible. Arguments over what terrorism actually means are therefore irrelevant - in the end we will be unable to escape the fact that labeling something as "terrorist" means we are slapping a value judgement on it, and that cannot be NPOV. Graft 17:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Should we likewise not use the term "murderer" or "mobster" or "serial killer" or "assassin" or "con artist" or "pirate" or "necrophilic" or "child molester" or "bank robber" or "hitman" or "cannibal" or "cult leader" or "pedophile" or "hijacker" or "drug kingpin" because these all are descriptions of what most people consider evil? If someone can come up with a reasonable argument as to how the attack on the WTC could not fall under the category of "terrorism" I'd be willing to listen to it. After all, someone once mentioned that the Pentagon could be considered a military target, and as such I agree that calling the attack on the Pentagon terrorism would be POV. But no one has given a plausible explanation or definition as to why the attack on the WTC does not fall under the category of terrorism. anthony (see warning) 15:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Those are good questions, and not rhetorical. I would personally rather not call George H.W. Bush a "murderer" in Wikipedia, although I would say that he shot down enemy fighters in WWII. I wouldn't call Lucky Luciano a "mobster", but would say he was a member of the mafia. Similarly, I wouldn't call Idi Amin Dada a "canibal", although I would point out that he reportedly ate human flesh on at least one occasion. The reason is that I would avoid labelling a person with a loaded term, in the interest of being as NPOV as possible, if it's avoidable. In this case, if the attack can be described perfectly well without using the loaded term, then in my opinion, we should avoid the term. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:06, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I would personally rather not call George H.W. Bush a "murderer" in Wikipedia, although I would say that he shot down enemy fighters in WWII. Well, that's good, since shooting down enemy fighters in WWII isn't murder. I wouldn't call Lucky Luciano a "mobster", but would say he was a member of the mafia. But that's what "mobster" means. Similarly, I wouldn't call Idi Amin Dada a "canibal", although I would point out that he reportedly ate human flesh on at least one occasion. Again, that's what "canibal" "cannibal" means. In this case, if the attack can be described perfectly well without using the loaded term, then in my opinion, we should avoid the term. But the term "terrorist" is not really loaded, it just describes a person that is nearly universally agreed as being evil. I don't see why this should matter. If someone is a communist, it's OK to say it, because not everyone dislikes communists, but if someone is a serial killer, then we can't say so, because people don't like serial killers? I don't think you can ever convince me that that makes sense. anthony (see warning) 20:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A communist would probably refer to himself as a communist, and a serial killer may well refer to himself as a serial killer, but a terrorist would almost certainly never refer to himself as such, just like a communist wouldn't generaly call himself a 'piece of Marxist scum', nor a serial killer call himself a 'mass murdering bastard'. These are emotive terms, when we think of a 'Mobster', we think of a gun wielding man in a striped suit, but a 'member of the Mafia' has no such image, and might instead inspire someone to actually find out what this gentleman did, instead of relying upon a sterotypical images.

If we are talking definition here then Wiktionary defines 'Murder' as 'An act of deliberate killing'. Therefore shooting down WWII fighters could legitimetly be descirbed as murder, assuming the reason was to kill those inside. Every 'murder' in war could be legitamised away from that description by offering another rational, such as self-defence, but ultimately is not one of the aims of kiling people in war is to reduce the number of enemy soldiers, such that those who remain surrender? --NeilTarrant 12:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • A communist would probably refer to himself as a communist Fair enough. and a serial killer may well refer to himself as a serial killer, but a terrorist would almost certainly never refer to himself as such I seriously doubt a serial killer is any more likely to call himself a serial killer than a terrorist is to call himself a terrorist. These are emotive terms, when we think of a 'Mobster', we think of a gun wielding man in a striped suit, but a 'member of the Mafia' has no such image Don't speak for me. I get essentially the same image from either term. If we are talking definition here then Wiktionary defines 'Murder' as 'An act of deliberate killing'. That is by no means the most common definition. The most common definition of murder is unlawful killing. You'd have a hard time fining people who would agree to labelling self-defense as murder, for instance. In the case of "terrorism", however, I have never seen a serious definition which doesn't include the destruction of the World Trade Center. Therefore shooting down WWII fighters could legitimetly be descirbed as murder, assuming the reason was to kill those inside. Perhaps, but it could also legitimately be described as not murder. Every 'murder' in war could be legitamised away from that description by offering another rational Not every act. If someone intentionally shot and killed an innocent unarmed child who posed no threat to that person, even during a war, that would be classified as murder by anyone who seriously considered the question. but ultimately is not one of the aims of kiling people in war is to reduce the number of enemy soldiers, such that those who remain surrender? There are a number of rules of engagement in war. If an enemy soldier surrenders, you're not supposed to kill that soldier. The aim of war is not to kill the most enemy soldiers. That tactic may be tried by some war leaders, but it is by no means the only way to achieve victory. anthony 警告 19:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categories

Please remove this article from the category Terrorist incidents, it has no place here and is a misuse of the category system. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:21, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist"

Poll is now closed.

Now that we've all had a chance to give the reasons pro and con, let's have a straw poll to see if we have consensus. This poll will close at 23:59 UTC on October 26, 2004. (Please note: this vote refers to text in the article, not the name of the article.)

Option 1: avoid the term

We should avoid referring to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" in the article. "Terrorist" is a loaded term. (This does not prevent the article from saying "The attacks were widely described in the international media as acts of terrorism.")

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:09, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
2. Gzornenplatz 21:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
3. NeilTarrant 12:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. --style 15:30, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
5. Let the article describe in full detail the horrors of that day, and let our readers decide what to call the perpetrators for themselves. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:14, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
6. What Neutrality said. ugen64 23:22, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
7. Sarge Baldy 23:22, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) I described my arguments in point 5.
8. Seriously, whatever happened to NPOV? If some people here think it's not straightforward, and there are a lot of them, then it most likely isn't Node 23:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
9. "Our terrorism is...so America would stop supporting Israel, who is killing our children." - Osama bin Laden. World press calls it terrorism. However, read wikipedia Terrorism -- the word is political propaganda, and clearly POV. Connelly 23:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. More precise and value-neutral terms can be found, e.g., in the vocabulary of asymmetrical warfare. 172 23:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
11. I think they were terrorist attacks, but clearly not everyone in the world does. The NPOV policy is clear on this, you can't use a term without qualifiers unless it's (near) universally agreed upon. Shane King 23:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
12. Too loaded a term to really be NPOV, IMO. James F. (talk) 23:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. See my comment below. ~leif ☺ _HELO 01:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
14. Wikipedia will not become acceptable throughout the whole world if it's articles are only NPOV seen from the view of the western world. Aenar 01:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. Avoid it - unless we can all agree that the U.S. bombing of Fallujah is a terrorist attack. Graft 02:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. In twenty years (hopefully), describing 9/11 as terrorism will not be a problem. But today, the word terrorist has a connotation that, when used incorrectly, could violate our policy of NPOV. I personally believe that they were, in the strictest meaning of the word, terrorism. But that phrase is used now in much the same way that 'communist' was thirty years ago and 'treason' is today by Ann Coulter. For the next decade or so, describing 9/11 as a terrorist act will call to mind many emotionally charged thoughts: 'they only hate our freedom' 'they're not reasonable' 'how could they be cruel enough to kill innocent people' 'you're a terrorist who's against America' 'you're un-American'... Leaving out the descriptor terrorism will allow people to approach the article in a more rational mode of thought. •→Iñgólemo←• 06:49, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
    • But see where this takes you. By this reasoning, thirty years ago we couldn't call Cuba or even the French Communist Party communist - but they clearly are. The fact that a word is being overused does not mean it has lost its meaning. It may not have been true that Prof. Fooblatz was a communist, despite accusations, but Fidel Castro still was. VeryVerily 23:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
17. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
18. Fredrik | talk 20:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
19. Mark Richards 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Using the word promotes one particular POV. We should avoid it.
20. WhisperToMe 22:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. SV 01:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) Note: At WP:cfd there is a debate about the use of the term as a categorical - see category:Terrorists. If WP uses the term to apply to the September 11, 2001 attacks, then it can do so only because of its colloqialist use within the United States. But while English has succeeded in becoming the language of the whole world, Americans cannot possibly dictate the terms of language which is now mostly non-American in origin. So, the question really is are the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" more than just American words, and are they clear enough to be considered encyclopedic? Ive said (typed) for a long time that this is better handled as a sitewide Editorial policy discussion. -SV

Option 2: Use the term

We should refer to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" in the article because deliberate attacks on civilians for political purposes are terrorist, and the 9/11 attacks were mostly deliberate attacks on civilians.

1. jguk 02:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. TheProject 04:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. VeryVerily 04:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I don't agree with the last rationale, but while some actions are debatably terrorist, this is not one of them.)
4. Evilweevil 08:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. --Jiang 08:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Mpolo 10:01, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
7. older≠wiser 10:56, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
8. NeoJustin 05:12 Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
9. violet/riga (t) 15:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
10. →Raul654 23:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) - although I think the stated reason is weak and misses the point entirely.
    • Agreed, did whoever started this poll (Quadell?) want to urge it the other way? VeryVerily 00:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • No, in fact I worked very hard at making it neutral. I actually started the poll with a different (and in my opinion, better) wording. jguk, the first to vote "use the term", changed the stated reason. (See details here.) Feel free to change the text back, if you like. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
11. IMO, the simple point is that they were terrorist attacks, just as suicide bombings by Palestinians are terrorist attacks, just as attacks on settlements in Gaza by Israel are terrorist attacks, just as strikes by U.S. forces in Iraq are terrorist attacks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia, so I assume that we are interested in consistency here. Are you going to push for the 2003 U.S. Invasion of Iraq to be renamed to the U.S. terrorist invasion of Iraq? -SV 01:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
12. Of course they were terrorist attacks. The vast majority of the targets were civilians, and deliberately so. Attacks that deliberately target civilians for political purposes are terrorist. Jayjg 00:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. SweetLittleFluffyThing (according to my dictionary, this exactly fit a terrorist attack).
14. Ambi 01:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
15. --198 03:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
16. IZAK 05:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) What were they then..."window-washers"? It was cold blooded mass murder of 3,000 innocent people!
17. It was terrorism - even if Osama & his terrorist network thought it was justifiable terrorism. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
18. The Cunctator 14:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Sheesh.
19. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 15:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Civilian target; calculated to instill fear in a population. Therefore, terrorism.
20. Everyking 16:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
21. The stated reason is ridiculous, but many of the voting comments are sound. We should understand that if we say it here, we may have to call certain military operations (bombing of dresden) "terrorism" also. Sam [Spade] 16:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If I could reasonably expect state actions such as that to at least warrant a categorization of terrorism (without even needing to implicity calling them such within the article), I also would be voting in this section. But having attempted such categorization before I feel there's far too much resistance to expect that to ever happen on this wiki. Sarge Baldy 19:31, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Progress comes with time. I have every confidence that the wikipedia will in time lead the way towards NPOV in encyclopedias, precisely because the group editing process which causes temporary conflicts like this one, should eventually solve them. Babysteps, eventualism, etc... :) Sam [Spade] 19:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Using it will prompt the demand that the 'terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki' be recognised. Let's not go there. Avoid the term. Mark Richards 22:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • MR, do you mean the "Humanitarian attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki"? :{ -SV 01:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
22. Jwrosenzweig 23:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (At some point, we have to decide that a word's connotations are not sufficient to overpower its denotations. Here, the denotation of the word "terrorist" matches the events of 9/11 well...the fact that the word's connotations imply for most people that those actions were wrong is not enough, I judge, to prevent us from using what is obviously the most apt word. For what it's worth, if a group of Americans crashed a 747 into a Parisian building, killing many civilians, to protest France's refusal to join the war in Iraq, I would find "terrorist" an equally apt description. This doesn't have anything to do with POV, and everything to do with precision.)
23. Clearly. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
24. I understand Neutrality's sentiment, but I think moral equivocation just goes too far sometimes. They were terrorist acts. You do not create freedom by murdering innocent civilians wholly involved with your cause and who lacked the ability to influence it. That said, the difference between 9/11 and, say, Dresden is that the latter occurred during a state of war between sovereign states. Dresden can rightly be called an atrocity, but terrorism is reserved for groups outside the nation-state system. Mackensen 04:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Why do you say that? Our own article on terrorism doesn't deny the existence of state terrorism, which on its own also merits its own article. On what grounds would you argue these definitions of terrorism invalid? Generally the gov't and media portrays a certain image of terrorism and terrorists and if you cared to research the subject further you'd find that only state gov'ts deny the existence of state terrorism in their official definitions, and in their case the possible conflict of interests seems to me more than a little suspicious. Sarge Baldy 04:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Be that as it may, the distinction still stands. Frankly sir, I resent the implication that I don't know my subject. Our article on Terrorism clearly defines the term, and if 9/11 doesn't fit it then nothing does. I feel that the distinction between Terrorism and State Terrorism (which, as the article notes, is a highly-controversial term) is a notable one, primarily because sovereign states are granted/assume powers that private citizens are/do not. If you want to label Dresden a terrorist act, then that's a matter for Dresden, not here. Mackensen 04:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Further note: Personally, I'd label Dresden as a war crime, which is not the same thing as Terrorism. Mackensen 05:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
25. It's widely accepted terminology, even by Al Jazeera. At some level everything is POV. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 01:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
26. If these attacks weren't terrorism, what is? See my comments elsewhere on this page. Isomorphic 20:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
27. PedanticallySpeaking 15:08, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC). While the term "terrorist," like "racist" or "fascist" is thrown around all too readily, and there are problems in defining it for the statute books, there can hardly be a more clear case than 9/11 for using the term.

Brief comments

(Long comments should go in the Great Terrorism Debate section above.)

• When will we actually work towards improving the article rather than having poll after poll after poll.......? - anon
• Why I voted to not use use the word here: Currently the United States government and media tend to use the propaganda-esque terrorism label to describe any violence they disapprove of. Arguably, Hiroshima, Dresden, and even some of the recent "coalition" actions in Iraq could accurately be considered to have terror as their goal, but obviously Wikipedia isn't going to use the T word to describe any of those things. Lets not use it here either. Except, of course, to say that they were "widely described in the international media" as such. ~leif ☺ _HELO 01:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  I definitely see your point. We do not use "terrorist" to describe Hiroshima, Dresden, or "coalition" attacks in Iraq - though they are all VERY terrorist. Where I diverge from your opinion is that I don't think we should just bullshit on MORE articles because of that. What happened on 9/11 was terrorist, and should be called such. Your other examples were terrorist actions as well; but just because WP doesn't use that word so describe them doesn't mean to me that we shouldn't use it here. If that makes any sense. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • • Acts of war between or by sovereign states are not terrorism: they are acts of war. That is why Hiroshima, Dresden, Coventry or "coalition" attacks in Iraq aren't terrorism, even though they terrified many people. jguk 05:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that view, which is why terrorism should be avoided: what qualifies as terrorism is varies widely, as there isn't even a widespread consensus on what terrorism is. The only way to maintain a NPOV is to avoid using the term in the absolute sense. Shane King 05:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is a widespread consensus on what terrorism is. Certain parties (like the Bush administration, Chomsky, etc.) extend or distort the definition to suit their political and ideological purposes, but there's a widespread consensus on the central definition of terrorism, and 9/11 is the textbook example of a terrorist attack. The Cunctator 14:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's also state actions in the Wikipedia that could arguably meet all definitions of terrorism that aren't classified as such, so where do you draw the line? Either everything arguably meeting requirements of terrorism should be classified thus (which I feel is impossible under the political climate here), or nothing should, since to choose what's terrorism and what's not more by media stimulation rather than by actually comparing it against the definitions classifies as a strong POV that I strongly feel should be nullified. Sarge Baldy 14:43, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

A more appropriate example might be Ronald Reagan's, i.e. the Contras, who were one man's terrorists and another man's freedom fighters. Or UBL himself, who went from being a mujahideen celebrated by the U.S. to a terrorist despised by it. Graft 16:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Honesty requires that I reveal Jimbo's opinion on the matter. It's here. *Sigh* – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:03, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Of course, it should be remembered that polls are a profoundly stupid way to make decisions. - The Cunctator 14:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you've got a much better suggestion, right? (I think it was inappropriate to post this comment where you did, especially without signing it, so I moved it here.) ~leif ☺ _HELO 21:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I voted against using the word, because while I can readily agree that these are terrorist attacks, the word is inherently political in its usage. Since we can all agree that there are many attacks that SHOULD be described as 'terrorist' that won't be - e.g. coalition bombing in Fallujah - the use of the word 'terrorist' in this context only serves to underscore a particular political outlook on the world. Yes, these attacks should be described as terrorist - but we can't risk being selective in our application of the word. Graft 16:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll results

Well, it looks like consensus was not acheived. I would therefore like to propose a compromise. See below.

The Quadell Compromise

The article will refer to the attacks as "terrorist attacks". The article will also mention that some organizations (such as Reuters), consider the term to be vague and inflamatory, and therefore they do not describe the attacks as terrorism. Further, the article should not overuse the term. (Atta and company can be called "terrorists" in some sentences, but may be referred to as hijackers, militants, or attack participants in other sentences.) Withdrawn – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Although this may not be my first choice, I find the Quadell Compromise acceptable.

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:16, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Maurreen 03:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Quadell Compromise is unacceptable to me.

1. jguk 04:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
   • That surprises me. Why is it unacceptable to you? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:20, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. This looks a bit like instructions to editors to me. zoney ♣ talk 10:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• I prefer the NeilTarrant Compromise below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:18, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Please do not change the wording of the proposed compromise. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:16, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I seriously suggest you to remove the word "jihadist" from your proposal, as I find that word easily more offensive than terrorist. A lesser jihad in Islam can only be called by an Imam, and only as a defensive measure. Members of Arabic militant groups have called a "jihad" of their own, but the vast majority of Muslims find such a declaration blasphemous and would certainly find it even more insulting to use it as an official descriptor of said aggressive actions. Sarge Baldy 05:00, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay. Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:20, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm confused. Consensus wasn't reached on what? It seems like the proposed change was to determine whether the use of the word terrorism is POV in the article as it is, and close to half of the people who voted believed that it is. Obviously if close to half the voters feel the wording is unfair as it is then clearly it's not NPOV and should be changed as per suggestion unless people would argue that omission of the term swings the POV in the other direction... Sarge Baldy 03:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is no consensus to delete the word "terrorism". It should stay. We never delete anything anywhere else (eg Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion) without a consensus to delete. No reason to have different rules here. No need to over-use it, but the word stays. Also, this is an article on the September 11, 2001 attacks. A discussion on whether "terrorism" is used by Reuters belongs, if anywhere, in the article on terrorism.jguk 04:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Votes for Deletion is the way it is because you need consensus before you can take the more radical course of action, which in the case of VfD is deletion. Unless more people find it POV to omit the word terrorism than allow it, removing the word is the less radical course of action, and consensus would have to be reached to allow the word to remain. 21 of 46 people said the current wording is unacceptable, and therefore there is no consensus to keep the article the way it remains at present unless more people would find removing the word terrorism more POV. Sarge Baldy 04:47, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Consensus is usually seen as 75% - 80% agreement (at a minimum). There isn't a consensus either way. That's why I'm hoping we can get consensus on a compromise. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:20, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • Why do you feel you need a consensus of people to say something is POV before it can be described as such? Sarge Baldy 19:31, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
          • You make an interesting point. In order for something to be considered, for instance, offensive, I would accept that if 45% of people were offended then that would be enough. A similar arguement can be made for POV. If 45% of people believe that an article is POV, then that is enough IMO. Personally, I would have voted to keep it, but to clearly describe Terrorism as a politically-manipulated POV term in its own article, which it already is. PhilHibbs 11:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I'm also of the view that if half the people think the word is not able to be used while maintaining a NPOV, then the word has serious problems and should be avoided. However, I'm willing to support the compromise providing it becomes accepted policy for the word terrorist. If terrorist is allowed to be used in this article, so long as it's used sparingly and it's noted not everyone agrees with the label, then it should be able to be used in the same way on other articles. I do not support the compromise if it's making this article a special case; that would most certainly be a gross cross-article NPOV violation. I feel any poll should address the broader issue not just this article for that reason. Shane King 13:41, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that the word need not be over-used, but this is not an article discussing the word "terrorism". A discussion on "terrorism" should, if anywhere, be on that page. jguk 13:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I realise it's not an article discussing the word terrorism. However, I think that just as selective omission can work as a force that makes an individual article fail the NPOV test, it can work cross articles to make a whole series of articles fail the NPOV test. We have to consider the broader impact of this decision, it's not enough to just stick our heads in the sand and say it should be thrashed out on an article by article basis. Like it or not, if we use the word terrorism in this article, it implicitly says something about other articles where we don't use the word. Shane King 14:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

• I don't see why the Reuters issue belongs anywhere other than the Terrorism. VeryVerily 11:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An alternate proposal?

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

Another Alternative

This article uses terms related to terrorism. There is considerable debate as to whether this term is inherently POV. For more information please consult the article Terrorism/POV opinions

or

This article uses terms related to terrorism, this should not be considered as a moral definition or a condemnation. Consult the article terrorism for reference on the term as Wikipedia uses it.

Add either of these as a boilerplate, which can be added to any article on 'terrorist' activities. The article Terrorism/POV opinions - can be created using arguments from this page, and from the recent discussion on the terrorists catagory.

Failing this I support the compromise proposal. --NeilTarrant 19:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a good compromise. Maurreen 03:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This is a better compromise than what I suggested. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I consider the latter quite good. Although undoubtedly the vast majority of Wikipedians do condemn the attacks, the article itself does not exist for that purpose. Thus I don't consider the "this should not be considered as ... a condemnation" line unwarranted. zoney ♣ talk 10:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, please comment on the ammended version. --NeilTarrant 12:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Communication disconnect? VeryVerily 12:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep - edited back! --NeilTarrant 12:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The second version looks like the best solution presented thus far for sure. Shane King 14:12, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree to this either. People are quite able to determine what 'terrorism' or any other word in common usage means. It is also completely unencyclopaedic. There are loads of words in articles that people object to. I hate the idea of setting a precedent so that every time there's an edit war or a dispute over a word, a boilerplate disclaimer could appear at the top. Or perhaps every article should be prefixed with 'This article contains words to describe TITLE that others may not use when describing it'?jguk 17:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support this compromise. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Around 3,000 articles currently use the words 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'. So the proposal, if carried through elsewhere, would deface at least 3,000 articles. Since the boilerplate applies to all words related to terrorism, no doubt there are many many more articles that would be defaced in this way. This proposal is far from being a compromise, it is a ridiculous and far-reaching proposal to deface lots of articles in ways that are guaranteed to create further edit wars. jguk 21:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of these two, I prefer the first. Should we have a poll on all the compromise proposals? Maurreen 16:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PLEEEEEEEEASE not another poll!!!! Does anyone have any ideas for actual improvements to the article? jguk 16:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you don't want to read the poll, no one will make you. You really can sit this one out, if you like. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:28, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest replacing "condemnation" with "judgement". Otherwise, I like your #2. - KeithTyler 00:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Alternate proposal No. 4

Use "terrorist" or an appropriate variation of the word only once, in the first sentence or two, to set the context. My rationale is that the word informs a reader unfamiliar with the event that it wasn't an attack by another nation's military, or outer-space aliens, or ordinary criminals, etc. Maurreen 03:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with the idea of not overusing the word. It can even come out of the lead section (replace 'terrorist attacks' with 'attacks') and just be mentioned later on in the article. jguk 17:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:44, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

As Maurreen says, the first sentence or two is the right place. Dropping the word terrorist somewhere in the middle of the article makes no sense. VeryVerily 11:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist is the right word

I can not believe this is even being debated. Only (3) perspectives actually exists in this debate:

• 1) Citizens of USA (the country attacked)
• 2) The remaining direct associates of those who launched the attack
• 3) Everyone else

Facts:

1. In USA, the overwhelming consensus is that terrorists attacked USA on 9/11
2. Those who attacked USA, deliberately killed civilians in peace time, without warning, for agenda driven reasons. Such an activity is one of the chief hallmarks of certain strains of modern terrorists. There are no non-terrorist groups which do that.
3. As for "everyone else"; who cares what they think?

216.153.214.94 07:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please be aware that the above post was made by an anon that has decided to spam anyone that decides to remove this offensive-to-some text. violet/riga (t) 19:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VioletRiga is making totaly false statements and repeatedly deleted my comments. If what I say is so incorrect, rebut me, don't delete me! 216.153.214.94 19:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Please be aware that the above post was made by an anon – fact
• an anon that has decided to spam anyone that decides to remove this – fact
• offensive-to-some text – fact

I removed this text because it is pointless. There is a full discussion above and adding this, especially with As for "everyone else"; who cares what they think?, is inappropriate in my opinion. violet/riga (t) 19:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure this merits too much time and effort, but here goes: As to #1, the overwhelming consensus is that Britney Spears is a good singer, but it's still an opinion, (and it's still wrong.) For #2, when the U.S. bombed Libya (under Reagan), we "deliberately killed civilians in peace time, without warning, for agenda driven reasons." Besides which, al-Qaida didn't consider it to be peace-time, as UBL had previously declared war on the U.S. And as for #3, Wikipedia cares what everyone else thinks. But thanks for your comments! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:42, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Libya

The bombing of Libya under Reagan was not "for agenda driven reasons". Rather, it was a retalation for MQ's then recently sponsored attack against USA citizens. Please do your reseach and avoid snotty (and false) retorts. Also, I am pretty sure Libya had been warned. 216.153.214.94 09:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe revenge classifies as an "agenda". An agenda shared by Osama, as indicated by the recent videotape. Osama also actually had warned the United States several times. Sarge Baldy 09:14, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Notice: Regardless of how many times the word "terrorist" is deleted from this article, I or one of my surrogates or associates will re-insert it. Fair Warining. 216.153.214.94 07:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. You should be aware that you have indicated that you intend to violate Wikipedia policies. You can be banned from Wikipedia for this. Fair warning. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise Poll

This poll will run to 23:59 UTC on November 7. If consensus is not achieved, we may have a runoff. Please vote for your top preference(s) and keep comments separate from votes. If you wish to add any compromise proposals, please do so in the same format. Maurreen 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) POLL CLOSED - SEE 10.13 BELOW FOR RESULTS

Proposal A

Limit the word “terrorist” to this sentence: "The attacks were widely described in the international press as 'terrorist attacks'."

• Support votes

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Sarge Baldy 08:35, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
4. Lokifer 08:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. VeryVerily 09:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) These were terrorist attacks, in the same way that the attack at Cannae was a pincer movement, right or wrong.
6. Shane King 03:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
7. --198 23:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC).
8. ~leif ☺ _HELO 10:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Can't support this, because it mandates a specific sentence.

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • impractical - eg later on article refers to the War on Terrorism. Try explaining that when you've banned the word from being used!jguk 08:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • the description was used by leaders, politicians etc as well as by the press: I'd be happy with a "widely described as" qualifier for any time terrorist or terrorism are used, but can't support the sentence as it stands. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal B

Use this disclaimer: This article uses terms related to terrorism. There is considerable debate as to whether this term is inherently biased. For more information, please consult the article Terrorism/POV opinions

• Support votes

1. Maurreen 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Sarge Baldy 20:00, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Lokifer 08:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC
4. VeryVerily 09:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) The word terrorism is hyperlinked. Like for any other term used in text, a reader can click on it to learn and understand more.
5. Shane King 03:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
6. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • dangerous precedent - applies to at least 3,000 other articles; people are quite capable of making up their own minds as to how to understand the wordjguk 08:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Disclaimers like these are a mess and could easily get out of hand. This is a Bad Idea. ~leif

Proposal C

Use this disclaimer: This article uses terms related to terrorism, this should not be considered as a moral definition or a condemnation. Consult the article terrorism for reference on the term as Wikipedia uses it.

• Support votes

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Lokifer 08:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Shane King 03:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
5. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Wolfman 03:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • dangerous precedent - applies to at least 3,000 other articles and many more if it's to apply to all articles where morals can come into play; people are quite capable of making up their own minds as to how to understand the wordjguk 08:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Not as bad as the last one. I certainly don't think it belongs, but it might be preferable to endless edit wars. The wording could use work, in particular trimming. VeryVerily 09:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal D

Use "terrorist" or an appropriate variation of the word only once, in the first sentence or two, to set the context. (NOTE: This is refined in proposal I.)

• Support votes

1. Maurreen 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Lokifer 08:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Sarge Baldy 19:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
5. Shane King 03:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
6. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. ~leif ☺ _HELO 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • My rationale is that the word informs a reader unfamiliar with the event that it wasn't an attack by another nation's military, or outer-space aliens, or ordinary criminals, etc. Maurreen 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))
  • Using the word only once is too limiting. How do we explain 'War on Terrorism' without using the word terrorism. jguk 08:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It should be clarifed what is meant by "use once". For instance, comparisons with other "terrorist attacks" requires using the T-word. VeryVerily 09:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • "Setting the context" with the word in a definitive usage is still POV. ~leif

Proposal E

Remove word "terrorist" from the lead section. Use it occasionally, but sparingly, in rest of article.

• Support votes

1. jguk 07:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. Sarge Baldy 08:34, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Lokifer 08:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. VeryVerily 09:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) What it/they was/were should be said right away.
5. Shane King 03:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
6. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • A sensible way round this. The previous polls made clear that the word should stay, but we have to recognise that many would rather it weren't there.jguk 08:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Because "sparingly" is subjective, this might not settle the issue. Maurreen 19:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The present use in the first sentence makes it seem too much like a definitive statement, if subsequent use was qualified as "generally regarded as" or suchlike, use could be unrestricted dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• What's the point? This wouldn't reduce the POV factor at all. ~leif

Proposal F

Use word "terrorist" in first paragraph to set the scene. Then use it occasionally, but sparingly, in rest of article (i.e. not a complete ban).

• Support votes

1. jguk 07:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Evil saltine 08:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. I can accept this in terms of not beating the proverbial dead horse - make the point, move on. VeryVerily 09:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Supporting in an attempt to get a compromise – violet/riga (t) 10:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. Best we're gonna get...[[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 04:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8. Good compromise--198 23:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. Sarge Baldy 08:34, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Lokifer 08:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Shane King 03:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
5. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • A sensible variation on Proposal Djguk
  • Because "sparingly" is subjective, this might not settle the issue. Maurreen 19:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • How is this a compromise? The word terrorism is still used in the exact same way it had been. If the word terrorism is being used in a POV context, how does it change anything to restrict its usage and annoy editors who will come to the page unaware of guidelines, not to mention cause even more disputes since the "solution" is so utterly subjective. I find even Proposal G below preferable to this because if you're going to use a word in a way that's clearly POV, you may as well be able to do so as many times as you want. Sarge Baldy 13:41, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal G

Don't limit the use of the term "terrorist" anywhere in the article, don't include a disclaimer.

• Support votes

1. RickK 07:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. Lokifer 08:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. 216.153.214.94 05:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. jguk 07:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Wolfman 03:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. Sarge Baldy 08:16, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. Shane King 03:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
4. Maurreen 08:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • Not a compromise. Maurreen 08:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal H

Remove all definitive instances of the word terrorism. The word can still be used in other contexts (e.g. "American media commonly reported the attacks as terrorism").

• Support votes

1. Sarge Baldy 08:28, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. Gzornenplatz 09:18, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
3. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
4. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 18:07, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
5. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. RickK 08:30, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. VeryVerily 09:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. jguk 09:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. violet/riga (t) 19:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Shane King 03:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
6. 216.153.214.94 21:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. --198 23:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Wolfman 03:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments

Nearly 45% of users found the word terrorism in the article to be POV, which is easily a sufficient enough minority to suggest the page is currently violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Therefore, the word should be removed. Sarge Baldy 08:28, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

90%+ of Germans during WWII were Nazis, so what kind of logic is that? 216.153.214.94 08:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

no they werent The bellman 02:19, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

• Capitulation to the terrorists, not a compromise. RickK 08:30, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Ditto RickK 216.153.214.94 08:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Sarge Baldy's reasoning is absurd. It's like saying "60% of people think 60% of people agree with X; therefore 60% of people agree with X." VeryVerily 09:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No, my reasoning is that 44% disagree with X, therefore there is no consensus to keep X. Sarge Baldy 09:24, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • If there is serious doubt about if something is POV (eg 45% of people feel that it is), I think it's clear that it should be treated as POV and qualified as such. Sarge Baldy's reasoning is not absurd at all. ~leif
• I prefer the reasoning that 55% agree to keep the word, therefore the word should be kept. jguk 09:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• My personal view is this is the right choice according to the NPOV policy, but it's not consistent with other articles, so I have to oppose. Shane King 03:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Surely this is the right choice and all other articles should be brought into line with it for NPOV. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This proposal seems reasonable. The word can be used repeatedly, but it should be carefully enough qualified in each instance that if you were to find and replace the word "terrorism" with "evil" the article would still be neutral. It is entirely possible to use the word several times in the article, and qualify it to that degree. ~leif

Proposal I

(This is a refinement of Proposal D). Describe the attacks or attackers as "terrorist" or an appropriate variation of the word only once, in the first sentence or two, to set the context.

• Support votes

1. Maurreen 09:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:49, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. Sarge Baldy 19:53, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. jguk 20:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. RickK 22:14, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
4. Shane King 03:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
5. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • My rationale is that the word informs a reader unfamiliar with the event that it wasn't an attack by another nation's military, or outer-space aliens, or ordinary criminals, etc. Maurreen 09:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Such would be perfectly clear in Proposal H. This doesn't proclaim exactly whether the attacks can be called terrorist or not. If not, obviously I can accept it. If so than I cannot. Sarge Baldy 20:01, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal J

(refinement of F) Use word "terrorist" in first paragraph to set the scene. Then use it occasionally, in rest of article where a suitable synonym can not be found, or is overly-cumbersome(i.e. not a complete ban).

• Support votes

1. RickK 20:21, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. Sarge Baldy 03:19, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Shane King 03:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
3. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • I havent been at all involved in this article, but reading Proposal F i thought that this rewording might help to address the issues with subjectivity. It is still subjective but at least it has a tighter definition of when it is appropriate and when it aint. May you all reach consensus through the power of wikilove. The bellman 02:33, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
  • Frankly I don't care how many times the word is used, if the word is used in a way that's POV once, it may as well be used that way 1000 times, because it's still endorsing the same thing. I don't see how this, along with several of the other proposals, change anything but to annoy editors, and inevitably it will just lead to more arguing over how often is acceptable enough to use the word. Even just leaving it how it is seems more preferable to me than most of these "compromises". Sarge Baldy 03:25, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Having a "use it sparingly" policy has the potential to create more edit wars, not less, as people argue over whether the usage is sparing enough. No thanks. Shane King 03:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Aside from being uselessly vague, this "Use sparingly" policy wouldn't actually reduce the POV conveyed by the word. It should instead be defined how the word is to be used (eg, only use it with NPOV qualifiers). ~leif

Proposal K

Develop a coherent and sitewide policy for the use of the word terrorist, rather than treating this page as special.

• Support votes

1. Shane King 03:36, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Sarge Baldy 03:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
3. VeryVerily 03:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) I also support developing fountains of youth, peace on Earth, magical elixirs, honest politicians, and a whole host of other things which will never, ever, ever happen. You'll have a better chance getting agreement on a policy on naming Gdansk.
4. Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. dave souza 13:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. violet/riga (t) 16:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Fredrik | talk 18:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. 216.153.214.94 21:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:55, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) I also think that it is better not to draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't use the phrase 'terrorist'. Just quietly refrain from using the word, and few people will really notice the difference.
10. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) obviously, an official policy would help save time when this comes up elsewhere. Only RickK would vote against this.
11. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 18:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC): who wouldn't support this...not that it would be easy/possible to do without a royal mandate.
12. Rd232 01:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) As a controversial term, a 'introductory use and try to avoid elsewhere if possible' policy seems sensible in general; and especially in this case as participants wouldn't self-describe as terrorists, despite the clear intention of the act being to inspire terror. The issues around the use of the term should be dealt with at Terrorism or possibly a new related entry - as Terrorism doesn't currently have enough of this IMO (eg comparing State terrorism and War on Terror and even Orwellian use of language) and more on this might be a distraction from main subject.

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. RickK 20:22, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. Wolfman 03:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • The only way to ensure NPOV is to take the encyclopedia as a whole, and apply the same usage of the word to all articles. This page is about the worst place to start with, because of the high proportion of American editors. Given the attack was against America, it's bound to be a very emotive issue. Shane King 03:36, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. This is a matter that needs to be clarified systemwide. Sarge Baldy 03:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • We're going to run out of letters pretty soon. VeryVerily 03:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. For example, developing a sitewide policy will likely take more time than decisions for a single page. Will relevant edit wars cease in the meantime? Maurreen 05:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless the groups committing terrorism and their supporters actually use the term themselves, these words can not be NPOV and all uses of the words should make it clear that the description is not universally agreed. The article on the Provisional Irish Republican Army shows good NPOV in using these words. dave souza 07:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why anyone would vote against this. I didn't support it only because I have doubts about the practicality. But I don't oppose it either. If it does work, we would at least greatly reduce this type of dispute. Maurreen 06:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal L

Suggestion - a refinement of H with similar aims to I: remove the unqualified adjective "terrorist" from the first sentence, then add a second sentence on the lines of:

There was immediate and almost universal international condemnation of these attacks as a horrendous act of terrorism.

• Support votes

1. dave souza 13:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POLL CLOSED

• Oppose votes

1. Sarge Baldy 16:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. jguk 19:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. RickK 20:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
4. VeryVerily 08:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Too much distance from a shoe that fits.
5. ~leif (talk)[[]] 10:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) again, this mandates a specific sentence, so it's not a good option

POLL CLOSED

• Comments
  • I want to accept this, but I don't like the idea of setting a rule to force a sentence in. It's really kind of a pain in the ass on editors, especially those who don't know the rules and might inadvertently move the sentencce for better flow. As for the sentence itself I have no problem whatsoever with it, as it's not only a fact but doesn't use terrorism as a definition of the attacks (and so such a sentence would already be allowed under Proposal H). Sarge Baldy 16:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • The statement is factually incorrect. In some countries large crowds of people immediately celebrated these attacks. Amongst many other people there was ambivalence. Remember, not everyone agrees with the US or Western POV!jguk 19:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not factually incorrect, it says "almost universal" and relatively very few people "celebrated" the attacks, despite media focusing on such individuals. I agree with RickK below though that "horrendous" goes quite a bit too far. Sarge Baldy 20:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Horrendous" is even more POV than "terrorist". RickK 20:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • That's irrelevant, since it's imputed to international condemnation. However, the word wouldn't improve the intro either. VeryVerily 08:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This isn't a rule or sentence cast in stone - the principle is to describe a widespread, if not "almost universal" opinion without putting it as Wikipedia's point of view. My suggestion is to try to get consensus by keeping an early mention of terrorist or terrorism, making it clear that it's a widespread POV but leaving it clear that it's not NPOV or unversal. Hopefully someone's better at phrasing this-.dave souza 07:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, your proposal uses terms that some people call weasel words (bad attempt at witticism intended). These may be ok where something isn't really in dispute, but lead to edit wars when they can be disputed. On this page, we should avoid them. jguk 08:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise poll results

Well the poll has ended. Only two proposals have a majority. Proposal K was passed by consensus. It was to develop a coherent and sitewide policy for the use of the word terrorist, rather than treating this page as special. Those advocating that proposal will no doubt seek to develop that policy in the Wikipedia namespace and will advertise it widely. However, until a coherent and sitewide policy is developed, we need a way forward for this article.

The other proposal to gain a majority was Proposal F. However, Proposal F was not passed by consensus. Proposal F was to use word "terrorist" in first paragraph to set the scene. Then use it occasionally, but sparingly, in rest of article (i.e. not a complete ban). Looking at the article, I think the only places where the word "terrorist" can be removed (excluding the first paragraph) are in the discussion of the insurance claims. I have therefore removed these references. The other references to "terrorist" or "terrorism" make it clear that the term is as defined by the US (or another) Government. These are therefore factual NPOV statements (you can disagree with the US and other Governments, but it is still true that those Governments use the term "terrorist"). I know this is not consensus, but under the circumstances and looking at all the polls above, I think it is the best we are going to get until a coherent and sitewide policy had been agreed. jguk 00:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here’s a summary of votes, support followed by opposition.

• Proposal A: 1-8
• B: 3-7
• C: 1-6
• D: 2-7
• E: 3-6
• F: 8-6
• G: 5-6
• H: 6-8
• I: 2-6
• J: 1-4
• K: 12-2
• L: 1-5

Expanding on jguk’s comments: I’d like to suggest that until such a sitewide policy is developed, we have a truce on the term at least as used in this article and we keep a notice of this truce on the talk page. Maurreen 05:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the use of the word terrorism/terrosit over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Please add your suggestions and get the ball rolling. Shane King 06:05, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion referred to by Shane King above has been moved to Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)jguk 22:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete my votes

Anon "votes" on talk pages are valid if anon IP user has many edits - I do. 216.153.214.94 08:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong, anons cannot vote in anything. Register an account :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Show me where it says that. 216.153.214.94 05:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"While in most Wikipedia polls, anyone can express their opinion, whether logged in or not, your opinion may be given more weight if it is attributed to a fixed identity with a record of sensible commentary and informed edits." Why create an account?Alberuni 05:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... that does not sound like it says its OK to delete my votes now, does it? 216.153.214.94 06:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay to delete and/or invalidate your votes as long as you insist posting as an anon - Get an account, please. WhisperToMe 06:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are two reasons why anonymous users are not allowed to vote (I'm sure this is explained somewhere else, but I can't remember where, so here it is). The first is the problem of dynamic IPs; some dialup connections and broadband providers (e.g. mine) assign a new IP every time a user connects, and I think AOL sometimes assigns a new proxy IP on each page load—so if IP addresses were allowed to vote, then whoever had a larger pool of dynamic addresses available would win the poll by default. The second is the problem of proxy servers; multiple individuals might connect through the same static IP address, thus whoever votes first can prevent every user who connects through the proxy from expressing an opinion. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Listen "Jones", please stop trying to pull new rules out of your butt. I'm happy to not "vote" on this content poll, if you show me where this Wiki has a written rules that says I can't. If not, I am going to vote. If and when this particular poll is flooded with tons of IP only votes, we can revisit the issue. Until then, I am voting, so please butt out. 216.153.214.94 21:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just register, "anon", it's not that hard to get an account. or just put your password under where it says "username: Rex071404" --kizzle 08:48, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

"Kizzle", my studies of several of your talk page comments indicate that you are a snide mocker. Perhaps that's why Rex071404's comments to you seem to indicate that he thinks you are a useless POS. 216.153.214.94 08:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what part of urging you to register was snide? and you don't know the detailed history between me and rex071404... he was such an immature baby about everything, he has multiple complaints issuing from his abusive behavior, and he was banned from editing any political articles due to his reckless behavior, which may or may not include this article. So just to let you know, don't take his words too seriously, I know you're better than that. --kizzle 08:14, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

These seem like theoretical rather than real issues. It's pretty clear the same person has been making hundreds of edits from the same IP. Furthermore, I don't see pools of dynamic addresses as any larger a threat than sockpuppet armies, of which several known ones exist, and which require no technical conditions. So I don't see a problem in that regard of this IP participating. Whether posting at all violates an ArbCom ruling or not is another question. VeryVerily 04:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VV, I regard all anons who try to vote yet refuse to get an account as acting lazy that way. You know why I say they are acting lazy? Because getting an account on WP is so damned easy. One doesn't even have to put in his real e-mail address... WhisperToMe 23:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that he has an account (or two) already and is choosing not to use them. So I think we can rule out laziness as an explanation. And if he has some other reason (or even if it is laziness), I don't see that it's our place to deem it legitimate or not. VeryVerily 08:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I do XD - Exceptions require policy change. WhisperToMe 04:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VV, I don't know how you can stand wasting you breath on some of these people. 216.153.214.94 03:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh come now, WhisperToMe is being completely civil; it's just a disagreement about the best policy. I know working here can be frustrating but it won't help matters to take it out on other editors. VeryVerily 05:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't care if you don't want to use an account. Right now, the policy is strictly no anons may vote. If you want to vote, go on the policy page and please justify why you want to vote without using an account. WhisperToMe 04:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is that really a rule? It is on RfA and maybe VfD, but this is just an informal survey to canvas opinions and work towards a consensus. If someone strongly objected to the survey's outcome, they can raise problems with anons or sockpuppets in discussion. VeryVerily 05:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators WhisperToMe 05:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, this applies to VfD, not informal surveys. (Also, FWIW, I don't buy the assumption that anon votes must be "bad faith".) VeryVerily 05:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

god, this page is having trouble reaching consensus on who is allowed to be involved in reaching consensus. Okay anon, why dont you want to register/use an account to vote on this page? im not saying you should have to, just that it might help move the debate along if we knew. The bellman 04:56, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Take a look contributions list for Rex071404. See how his edits are constantly attacked by biased pro-liberal editors. Go examine the endless reams of talk pages where Rex talked till he was blue in the face - all to no avail. In particular, go look at the talk page and edit history at Dedham, Massachusetts. And look at this edit where "216" (being accused of being "Rex") is told to "Go fuck yourself". Then let me ask you: If 216.153.214.94 is "Rex", what incentive does he have to log in? Why bother? 216.153.214.94 18:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a rather odd argument... anyway, as far as I know, we have never allowed anons to vote on substantial matters. Take that at face value (POV, mean, whatever), but it's my personal experience. Anons are forbidden from RFA, VFD... they were forbidden on quickpolls... and to my knowledge they aren't allowed to vote on the vast majority of polls. Now, to clarify: they *can* vote, but in all but the most extenuating circumstances, their votes will be disregarded and moved to the comments section. Cheers, ugen64 03:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not the sort of substantial matter where anons have traditionally not had votes counted. They have in the past been able to vote for far more substantial things, such as complete deletion of an article. Should anyone have doubts about whether there is multiple voting going on via the IP I'll be happy to check after a request in IRC or on my talk page. So far there is no sign at all of it, by either logged in users using multiple accounts or anons and logged in users, so everyone can rest easy about the possibility.Jamesday 04:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. But because Wikipedia tries to go for consensus instead of majority rule, one vote probably won't make much difference. I guess I've learned that in the future, such issues should probably be decided in advance for cases like this. Maurreen 05:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)