This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arno (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 17 January 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:29, 17 January 2004 by Arno (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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
- 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)
- September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
- Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)