Brilliance

Joined 14 January 2007
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brilliance (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 16 January 2007 (Joshdboz). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Brilliance in topic Joshdboz

Welcome to my discussion page.


Joshdboz

I have recently reverted your edits to the article Munich massacre. The use of the word "terrorist" is a hotly debated issue on wikipedia, and the consensus is that it should only be used in a situation such as "The US has designated X a terrorist organization". Other more descriptive words like militant, hostage-taker, hijacker, etc. should be used instead when possible. Thanks, Joshdboz 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Response: The usage of the word "terrorist" is required in this situation. These groups are terrorist organizations and should therefore be called terrorist organizations. Calling them anything else allows them dignity that they dont deserve! Simply calling everybody a 'militant' makes a soldier and a terrorist equal. A terrorist is clearly completely different than a militant. These groups are the definition of terrorists. Brilliance 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I understand what you mean, but as the cliche goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Since wikipedia is NPOV, it's better to let facts speak for themselves instead of labeling people with emotionally charged and ambiguous terms. I would refer you to this guideline Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism for usage. Joshdboz 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Response: I have revised the article to still be neutral as well as inform the truth. Brilliance 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC).Reply