| Revision as of 15:24, 17 January 2004 editRmhermen (talk | contribs)Administrators62,566 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:13, 17 January 2004 edit undoTempshill (talk | contribs)9,225 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| : Err .... but I better point out that it is ''not'' pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a ''type'' of action, it describes a ''type of judgemet about'' that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. ] | : Err .... but I better point out that it is ''not'' pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a ''type'' of action, it describes a ''type of judgemet about'' that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. ] | ||
| :: Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. ] 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. ] 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) | : Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. ] 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
| * ] 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) | * ] 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) | ||
| * ] 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) | * ] 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) | ||
| * ] 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
Revision as of 18:13, 17 January 2004
Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.
See also Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.
Old talk archived at Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive and Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive2
There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A good idea, and one that will (hopefully) bring this whole pedantric matter to a close. My prediction is that "keep the terrorist word in" side will win handsomely. Arno 09:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- OK. Let's do it. Tannin
- Err .... but I better point out that it is not pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a type of action, it describes a type of judgemet about that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. Tannin
- Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
VOTE HERE
- September 11, 2001 attacks
- Tannin 09:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)