Toby Bartels wrote:

This assumes that there's a reason for it to be in the title at all. Why is that? What else could "September 11, 2001 attack" mean? Titles are not required to be maximally complete.

Point taken. I was operating under the assumption that your reasoning was only that 'terrorist' should be blacklisted from the title because it is a "loaded term". 'September 11 Attack' is *at least* used as often as 'September 11 Terrorist Attack' (probably more so). Of course we would have the add '2001' to the title because of ambiguity reasons.

I remember once trying to convince you of this very thing: NPOV is primarily about article bodies, not titles, and titles need to be further determined through arbitrary conventions.

Nah - my opinions are always right for all time. ;) But I seriously don't remember holding such an opinion since it is not possible to have NPOV in titles because we have to choose just *one* title for any topic.

Since this is a digression, I won't go on about what slander the term "PC" is. Suffice it to say that no social movement called itself that.

Well there is no political action committee whose aim is PC that I am aware of, nor any groups that have exclusively pro-PC meetings. PC is more of a cross-group "movement" to change the English language (using the word "movement" very loosely). Perhaps "trend" would be more accurate (even though there are many counter trends to PC that help to negate its progress).

All that "politically correct" nonsense is neither here nor there.

Yes - political correctness is nonsense. :)

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)