Talk:Pentagon considers using non-nuke ICBMs for preemptive strikes against alleged "terrorists"

Are they talking about "terrorists" or about "countries which they dont like"? I vote for banning the word "terrorists" from neutral news media, because it seems to completely have lost its original meaning. Nowadays its simply used as a replacement for saying "bad guys", "barbarians", "witches" or whatever is desired. --82.141.53.156 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

 * Agree with above. Unless we accept that USAGOV has the authority to determine who is factually a terrorist then we should not adopt their statements as being factual. Thus, in this article, we must say "alleged" terrorists since the Pentagon is not saying that the people targeted must have been proven in a court of law to be terrorists. Neutralizer 19:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically you don't have to be put through a "court of law" to be a terrorist in the eyes of the US gov, but anyway let's leave out the whole "alleged terrorists" or whatever in the headline. For one thing it is a mouthful. I personally think that for a headline it is clear that when the US gov says they will do something to terrorists they obviously mean "the people who they consider to be terrorists" but if you feel the need to indicate the "alleged" aspect in the headline, then let's just drop the whole phrase. --Fastfission 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just think it's notNPOV to assume everyone knows it's just US opinion when they use the word terrorist; the less assumptions the better,imo. Neutralizer 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure the quotes around 'terrorists' does the trick, it makes it sound less so NPOV and moreso severely disliking the use of the word. 'Alleged' would definately work better but the headline's a mouthful as is. If I both had an idea as to what to do to resolve the problem and knew how to move news stories using wiki commands I'd fix it myself. Oh and as a side note so I don't have to go edit the other section as well, 'non-nuclear' sounds better IMO than 'non-nuke'. --155.31.31.220 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider a noun between quotation as a proper noun; one uses it without meaning anything by it, other than indication Hillgentleman 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your knowledge of international law seems to be minimal. Neither the U.S, not any other nation can unilaterally declare someone a terrorist without giving him/her a free and fair trial first. Even the prisoners at the Guatanamo Bay torture-camp are referred to by their American captors as "detainees". That those unfortunate men are being deprived of almost evry other fundamental right is another issue altogether. PVJ(Talk)[[Image:Flag_of_India.svg|25px]] 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you on the fact that the US should not just be throwing the word 'terrorist' around because the US feels like it. But even when we're talking about due process of law, a man arrested for theft is an alleged criminal until convicted: by saying "Criminal" you trivialize the entire thing. Again, I personally believe the US has already trivialized the use of the word terrorist by overusing it, but it's not exactly neutral IMO to trivialize it ourselves.--155.31.31.220 12:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should just drop the whole phrase perFastfission's comments. Neutralizer 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it better to have a biased headline or a mouthful headline? I would prefer it to be  mouthfulHillgentleman 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-nuclear ICBM
At one point, the title had been changed to include a metion that the ICBMs would not be carrying nuclear warheads. Then it was changed back. While ICBM certainly doesn't neccesarily mean nuclear warheads, I think it is important to include the non-nuclear mention in the title, since the connotation most people have with ICBMs is that they are used to carry nuclear warheads. And usually that connotation is pretty strong. While it is not incorrect to leave the non-nuclear verbage out of the title, it is irresponsible, in that you are creating a sensational headline that is misleading to many people.

A good guideline might be that if a reader just reads the headline, he should not be left with an incorrect impression on the contents of the story. In this case, if non-nuclear is left out of the title, a general reader might certainly be left with the wrong impression. 129.42.161.36 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. --Fastfission 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"..were threatened at some number of years.."
It's in the wordsmith's quote; is a (sic) appropriate? Neutralizer 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spellings.
Since I (the author of the article) am from a Commonwealth country, I have used the British spelling of the word "defence" in the article. As such there is not mistake in the spelling of that word, so please do not change it to the (American) "defense". PVJ(Talk) 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)