Jump to content

Talk:The terrorists have won/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

"On September 19, 2004, Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert asserted that he believed that a new bombing in Spain was intended to urge US voters to vote for John Kerry. His implication was that al Qaeda's goal was to displace George W. Bush, and that a Kerry victory would be a victory for terrorism. This view was roundly criticized by news sources as alarmist and absurd."

What news sources? I don't recall this view (which went beyond Hastert, it was even in Bush political ads) being "roundly criticized." Perhaps by British and Spanish news sources, but not in the U.S.

Umm, it was in the news sources I was reading. Then again, I'm from Seattle, Washington, which is a pretty liberal place. You must also realize that this is the English language Wikipedia, not the USA Wikipedia. We have editors and an audience from all over the world. The current wording is vague, but in general this was criticized world wide as argumentum in terrorem. Or was that argumentum in terram? No, that was the Tora Bora deal. :)—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see the relevance of that to this article, unless someone can dig a quote up somewhere with the phrase. I'll remove it in a few days. -05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Onto another issue. I was looking for the original quotation. I'm pretty sure that George Bush used it. And I wanted to say that the meaning, at the time, was that we need to go on with everything as normal or the terrorists win (they win if the terrorists disrupt out lives further, they way we do things, what we stand for, etc etc). I was researching this for a contrast between the initial, "The terrorists win if we change who we are" versus where we are today, "We must change who we are (as a nation) so the terrorists must not win." [re: all the domestic spying stuff.. internet, banking, credit, telephone, etc] --68.97.208.232 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the saying is also turned around and used by supporters of free speech...

Such as, if they can't show the Simpsons episode with Twin Towers then the terrorists have won--Steven X 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Satire section

I created a section for satirizization of the phrase and added a well known David Cross comedy bit. I'm guessing that the bullet on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (which should be cited incidentally) belongs in the satire section as well but don't know the context well enough to move it myself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing memetics category

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. Facius 10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well in my opinion the statement that it is a meme should be removed, as A. it is just a theory, B. If it is a meme then this needn't be stated, C. Do Memes exist? Why not idea. The theory of Memes has not been proven in any way and is at best controversial and thus not a neutral point of view.

I shall remove it. If someone disagrees with me, then go and add it back. - Sigurd

Removing examples

Wikipedia is not a list of examples; examples require context, or they become trivia. However, these are decent examples and should be retained for possible future use.

Examples

  • On October 30, 2001, Martha Stewart sent a letter proposing that the regular Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Christmas party be cancelled, and that co-workers be forced to have subsidized company parties at their house. When regular staffers found the request bizarre, she sent out a company memo chastizing them for their hesitance, using this meme:
"To me the terrorists have certainly succeeded if so few of you participate in a company-wide effort to 'get together.'"* [1]
  • On November 4, 2001, Ellen DeGeneres hosted the Emmy Awards, which had been postponed twice that year for worries that a showy celebration would seem inappropriate in the wake of the attacks. To lighten the mood, she famously delivered the quip:
"We're told to go on living our lives as usual, because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists win, and really, what would upset the Taliban more than a gay woman wearing a suit in front of a room full of Jews?" [2]
"...if we allow ourselves to get into a situation where in fact we are suppressing our own individual rights in the wake of these dreadful atrocities, actually the terrorist begins to win, and that's the balance that I don't think is properly judged by the government."[3]
"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat [terrorism] renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won."[4]
  • On July 7, 2006, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on a state visit to the U.S., made a statement using the phrase:
"I would just urge the Congress to think carefully, [for] if the fight for security ends up meaning the United States becomes more closed to its friends, then the terrorists have won." [5]
"If people start turning their backs on comedy, and walking off panel shows, then the terrorists have won."

Satire

  • A November 12, 2001 cartoon in the New Yorker pictured two men sitting at a bar with one saying to the other, "I figure if I don't have that third Martini, then the terrorists win."[6]
  • An editorial cartoon from the series Tom the Dancing Bug, published in Salon on November 15, 2001, criticized the overly simplistic nature of the widespread meme. It pictured terrorists fretting about the lack of effect their attacks were having on American celebrities and their willingness to make planned public appearances. One terrorist thinks, "if only the Emmys had been canceled—then we, the terrorists, would have won!"[7]
  • On his Grammy-nominated 2002 live comedy album Shut Up You Fucking Baby!, comedian and war on terror critic David Cross lamented the fact that, in the months after the September 11th attacks, there was "so much...bad theater and art and singing and bake sales and anything else you could ever want to see or do or experience done in the name of not letting the terrorists win." Cross gave the example of a (fictitious) amateur comedy group who had decided not to go on stage because of 9/11 but changed their minds because "if Houston's own 'Assaulted Nuts' improv group doesn't perform, then the terrorists have truly won" - as if Osama Bin Laden, thousands of miles away, was saying, "Please—tell me the Assaulted Nuts are not performing!...No!!" In the routine Cross also imagined a man sitting at home thinking to himself, "man, if I don't fucking sit here in my apartment in the dark and jerk off to internet porn tonight, then the terrorists have truly won. I'm not gonna let that happen."[1]

Discussion

Removal of content

What part of WP:NOT are you invoking when you removed most of the content from The terrorists have won? You say "Wikipedia is not a list of examples," but I do not see that anywhere on that policy page. In the context of a page about a cultural meme it seems only fitting to provide multiple examples of how said meme has worked its way through the culture. If we did not, how could we prove it was a notable meme? A bulleted list may not be the best way to do that, but it hardly justifies a mass removal of content.

You also added needs a cite tags when the sentences which you said needed citation "It is used to warn against changing an otherwise normal behavior because of fear of terrorism" and "The phrase has also been used to satirize the sense of panic that sometimes accompanies discussions of terrorism" were clearly at least partially supported by the examples that you then went on to delete (it would be better to re-word the second sentence given the examples provided, but that is quite easy to do obviously). Adding those tags before deleting sources makes very little sense to me (plus you added a general, top level "This article needs additional references or sources for verification" tag after you deleted all of the sources, of which there were nine or ten, which is even more egregious). I agree that a couple of introductory sentences could be added both to the section "Examples" and to the section "Satire" and have meant to do so for the latter for awhile but have not. That's, again, an easy thing to do though, so why did you not simply work on that (or at least ask someone else to do so and wait for a reply) instead of deleting most of the article?

In the absence of a specific policy based explanation as to why you removed this without prior discussion, and why we cannot leave the content there and work on providing more context, my inclination is to revert your edits which have basically turned this from an interesting article that could use some work to a very uninteresting article with zero sources. If you want to work on providing more context I will help you with that for the satire section. You can reply here to keep it in one place as I'll check back, or if you prefer you can move this to the talk page and we can discuss it there, which is probably easier. I just wanted to make sure I got your attention in case you did not watchlist that page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the examples are not given any context; they are just a list of examples. Making statements like "It is used to warn against changing an otherwise normal behavior because of fear of terrorism." without citing any reliable sources that claim it is used in such a context is original research; specifically, original synthesis. The section of WP:NOT which I removed the content under is WP:IINFO; specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only thing the examples had in common was the phrase "the terrorists have won", or some variant thereof; this is a very loose connection, in my opinion, since it's just a turn of phrase.
The idea is basically that this should be an article about the phrase "the terrorists have won"; that is, where we include examples, they should be couched in the context of the article — that is, the example should be used to illustrate a usage, or should be specifically discussed in the article. For instance, that's why I kept the Reuter/Oscars example -- it was discussed in the article, and was relevant, so it would make sense to a reader of an encyclopedia. The rest, however, were basically just a collection of people and occasions when it was used. They don't really add anything to the article. Basically, my point is that if examples are to be included, they should be included in the body of the article, to compliment more removed commentary -- they should be not forked off into their own "examples" section, where they become basically a trivia section, and lack context. Personally, I would not be averse to using one or two to illustrate some of the more general statements used — however, I would first like to see some reliable sources discussing the different usages, so that we get out of the WP:SYNTH honeypot. --Haemo 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing at WP:IINFO which prohibits the use of examples and I do not interpret it that way. Of course all of the examples contain the phrase "the terrorists have won" (or some variation)--they are there precisely to illustrate how it has been used. Again, this is an article about a meme, so examples of how the meme has manifested itself seem appropriate to me, which is not to say that there should not be more contextual information.
I know some people like to invoke WP:CRAP when people reference similar articles, but personally I think such references are quite useful so here's one. Take a look at the page Cheese-eating surrender monkeys (which I just came across randomly looking for a different example). I think that article is similar to this one, albeit it is a bit better in terms of functioning as a real article (though not as well sourced). Much of that article simply lists out various points at which the "monkeys" phrase has been used and by whom. The content has not been deleted, rather tags have been added explaining that it needs better sourcing.
The article we are discussing did have sources for the various references, but no over-arching context which, I agree, it needs. My question to you was (and remains), why not work on this, or at least ask others to do so, rather than deleting examples wholesale without prior discussion? It would be great to find secondary sources that provide more analysis of this meme, and that is something we can work on. So do you want to work on it? If you don't want to hang around to improve the article, then all you have done is make an article that needs improvement worse, and for no pressing policy reason that I can see. My inclination remains to revert your edits.
I have one possible temporary proposal regarding the satire section which I'll run by you. We could preface that section with a statement along the lines of "A number of American comedians and satirists have mocked the phrase, sometimes suggesting that individuals use it as a means to justify bad behavior, or that the invocation of the phrase often suggests, falsely, that terrorists are paying attention to Americans' every move, watching for signs of defeatism." The wording of that isn't at all perfect, but you get the idea, which would be to summarize the examples given. Would you be okay with some along those lines (with key qualifiers like "a number" and "sometimes") or would that constitute original research for you? I don't think it would, mainly because it would just be pointing out what some persons (who are themselves prominent, or at least their publications are) have said, but maybe you think there would be a problem with that. Let me know what you think of that proposal, and of the idea of actually working on the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a better article; I'd like the terrorists have won to look more like that one. Although some of the context is not exactly important, and the sourcing is a little scarce, it at least tries to put it in some kind of context, rather than just compling a list of examples. To a reader, there definitely appears to be some thought and consideration for why an example is included, rather than simply using the phrase.
I mean, we apparently disagree over WP:IINFO; that's okay, it's no big deal, and we both basically have the same idea. My point is that if this is, apparently, a notable meme there should be lots of examples; thus, an "examples" section with no context for why the examples used were included is indiscriminate, in my opinion.
I absolutely would like to work on this, and would note that I didn't delete, or remove the material wholesale -- I sent it to the talk page, so we can keep the examples, and in the future possibly use some in an improved article. I don't really like the idea of keeping either an "example" or "satire" section; my proposal would be to illustrate the statements made in the first part of the article, with a "For example, John Stewart' etc etc. I think that is more encyclopedic. --Haemo 01:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
After this, we should maybe move this over to the article talk page (I can transfer it over there if it's okay with you, or feel free to do it yourself) since the discussion is relevant to the article. I agree that there should not be a section called "examples," rather the material in that section is largely in reference to "serious" (or however we would want to put it) uses of the term (i.e. somehow referring to the idea that if we don't do such and such, the terrorists will win). I think it would be especially useful to have a lead for this section that discussed some comments made about this type of usage--either explaining it's frequency/noting specific examples, or criticism of this kind of rhetoric (or possibly people arguing for it, though that seems less likely, people who are fine with using that kind of "terrorists will win" language probably simply use it without explaining why they think it is appropriate).
I do think there should be a stand alone section on satire (thus maybe the article could proceed intro, origins, "serious usage" (except something better than that), and finally satire). I think it make sense to have sections for this article, rather than one long page. Clearly one of the most notable aspects of this phrase/meme is how much it has been satirized, and I think it thus warrants its own section. Ideally we'll find a source or two that discusses this (or even mentions it briefly), but in the interim I'm wondering how you would feel about a sentence or two along the lines I've what I proposed above ("A number of American comedians...) to open a satire section leading into specific examples. I don't think it would be arbitrary to break out the satirical material into its own section, rather it would better illustrate the varying uses of this term, and I think several specific examples (roughly the number there were in the article before, though we could probably trim down the wordiness) are absolutely necessary.
As I said maybe we should now move this to article talk.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this dicussion here from User talk:Haemo.
Okay, I agree with you on the satire section; I think we largely understand one another. So, which examples do you want to include (a) in the lead and (b) in the satire section. I was thinking we could do something like:
Satire
A number of American comedians have used the term to satirize the fear which can surround discussions of terrorism, and reaction to it. For example.... (etc).
With the etc's replaced by one or two examples. We could also trim this out of the lead, or otherwise re-write it. --Haemo 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think several examples would not be out of place here, though we could trim down the wording. For the non-satire section, perhaps the first 4 could be used. The Martha Stewart, Ellen DeGeneres, and Charles Kennedy quotes all happened in the early months after the attacks, presumably when this line was especially common. They also show different ways in which the phrase was used. Stewart uses it very seriously in a "let's continue to act normally sense," DeGeneres basically agrees with the let's-act-normally idea but does so humorously (and at the Emmy's, which is very significant since they were initially canceled), and Kennedy employs it in a less conventional manner (at least for late 2001) arguing that restricting civil liberties out of fear of terrorism would mean the terrorists have won. Using the Kennedy quote--he is obviously an extremely significant UK politician--also has the advantage of showing usage in the UK, though as a couple of folks have suggested in the past we need to differentiate more between US and UK usage (if someone from the UK could help with that that would be great). Finally, I think it would be useful to use the judges quote in the Ahmed Ressam case, strictly as a means to illustrate the fact that use of the phrase in a "serious" sense continued well into 2005. Obviously the case itself was very significant so I think citing it would be appropriate. All of these examples are sourced, and if we ran them together with some transitions I think we would have a couple of medium sized paragraphs which would be appropriate. If a secondary source (or two) which discusses the phenomenon of this phrase in a broader sense could be found, we could open this section with that. I do think this section should be separate from the lead, which should just be a couple of sentences as it is now but nonetheless will need to be reworded. The last two examples I think we can safely leave out (the Harper quote is interesting but does not add much, the last one is unsourced and seems like an example of satire).

I would be fine with keeping all of the satire examples, except cutting down the stuff on David Cross and the Daily Show. If you think that's still too much, we could remove the Tom the Dancing Bug editorial cartoon, though I think that ties in nicely with the Ellen DeGeneres quote (another possibility would be to relegate the Dancing Bug satire to a footnote for the DeGeneres quote). If we kept them all we could say "some editorial cartoonists have lampooned the phrase..." and then put the New Yorker and Dancing Bug quotes. David Cross and the Daily Show should definitely be there in some form. Cross is a major figure in stand up comedy whose album was nominated for a Grammy, and he was probably one of the first well known people to mock this phrase (he was doing these routines just a few months after 9/11, which was a very bold move at that time, though it's almost difficult to remember). The Daily Show is arguably the most culturally significant comedy show on TV (anyway it's certainly up there), so clearly using something from them is a good idea, particularly since they have satirized this on at least two occasions (and I assume more). Also the Cross and Daily Show lines are just smart satire and therefore good to use. As I said we can cut this down though, as there are essentially two examples from each which is not necessary (this again might be a case where we could mention the second examples, particularly for the Daily Show, in a footnote).

Let me know what you think of those ideas. I'd be willing to write up an alternate version of the satire section and post it here for discussion, particularly since I set this up in the first place (though I did not find all of the examples). Perhaps you could work up something for the first section, though a title for that still eludes me. I'm really supposed to be on Wikibreak right now, argh!, so if we could get something together relatively quickly that would be sweet.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, three or four examples of each kind is not unreasonable. I would just trim down the wording as much as possible, and maybe do a little re-write to make them all fit in context. I would probably call the first section something like "General use" and the other section "Satirical use". Say, perhaps, after the Origin section, we have:
General usage
A number of different media commentators, politicians, and celebrities have used the phrase to warn against changing normal behavior due to fear of terrorism. One of the earliest televised uses occurred during the 2001 Emmy Awards when host Ellen DeGeneres quipped that "We're told to go on living our lives as usual, because to do otherwise is to let the terrorists win, and really, what would upset the Taliban more than a gay woman wearing a suit in front of a room full of Jews?" [8]. Politicians have also taken up the phrase to caution against over-reaction — for instance, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper explained on a state visit to the United States that he "would just urge the Congress to think carefully, [for] if the fight for security ends up meaning the United States becomes more closed to its friends, then the terrorists have won." [9] In the UK Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy invoked the phrase to argue against the imposition of liberty-restricting laws, stating that:"...if we allow ourselves to get into a situation where in fact we are suppressing our own individual rights in the wake of these dreadful atrocities, actually the terrorist begins to win, and that's the balance that I don't think is properly judged by the government." [10] The phrase has also found its way into how the judiciary treat terrorism cases, as U.S. District Judge John Coughenour remarked during the Ahmed Ressam trial "Unfortunately, some believe that this threat [terrorism] renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won."[11]
It's a bit too long, but that's what I have in mind. --Haemo 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this is a good start, I've made some very minor wording edits to it as you can see if you look at the last diff. If you feel comfortable doing so, feel free to move this text back into the article. It might be good to find a way to break this into two shorter paragraphs, but I don't have a brilliant idea about how to do this right now. I also might like to have a couple of more references to dates, for example somehow pointing out that Judge Coughenour's comment came in mid-2005, i.e. giving a sense that this was something that began in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 but has continued. Anyhow I think this works well for now so I would recommend putting it back in the article (which is too barren right now) and then we can play around with it a bit there. Also I think "general usage" works as a section title.
I'll work up something similar for the satire section, perhaps in the next few hours, but more likely in the next day or so, and then post it here for any feedback. Thanks for your help with this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Has no-one noticed the irony that WP:NOT is a list of examples? 87.194.145.17 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedantism

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Research, content, valid sources, wiki rules, MY BUTT.

The purpose of this article (and all the others) is to inform ME, the average reader. You scholars have lost the forest for the trees. This isn't a doctoral thesis, and no one gets graded or published here. You might be practicing for something like that, but you are doing it on MY DIME.

I (the average reader) say ALL interesting content (whether it's properly referenced or not) STAYS IN THE DAMN ARTICLE. Key word here being interesting. If I keep reading, and happen to learn something along the way, it's all good. If I get bored and quit, even if the article is perfect accordance with the guidelines, that's a big FAIL.

Context, folks. The rules/guidelines have context too. They serve me the reader and my interests, and not the other way around. You do not sacrifice me the reader for your tedious rules and pedantism.

Finally, the person with the cast-iron balls to unilaterally delete someone else's legitiate work without discussion, who the fuck do you think you are ? Some kind of cheese-eating monkey jacking off to cause the terrorists to LOSE ? If you don't know all of the above (what I just posted, and you clearly don't) then you aren't qualified to be deleting someone else's work. Step away from the computer, and go for a walk in the park. Maybe throw a frisbee to a dog for a while.

Okay, everyone nod their heads in agreement. "The interest of the reader is more important than your subjective (and collective) interpretation of the rules." Repeat that as a mantra, and throw in a few "Omms" every once in a while to make yourselves look spiritual.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Returning content/context to this page

In its current form, this article is really nothing more than a paraphrasing with very little context. I would like to begin adding back some of the content that had been removed, but I am sensitive to the criticisms that the article had been nothing more than a bulleted list of instances where the phrase/meme had appeared. I would like to look at other articles on rhetorical phrases that have been used, such as "stay the course", "cut and run", which focus more on the political context of the original iterations of the phrase, and then later on go into the migration of the phrase in to wider pop culture. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add more material if well-sourced. What's the worst that can happen? Someone takes it off. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I hear that. Go for it - I won't stop you. Outback the koala (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If we are afraid to add material to an article, well then.... Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Should it be called "The Terrorists have Won?"

To me at least, the name doesn't seem right. When I first went on this page, it almost felt like someone had vandalized it. It could be changed to "Then the terrorists win," because that could give a viewer a clearer idea of the subject. --Joshua H-Star-R 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua H-Star-R (talk • contribs)


I was not sure on this topic if the politicians have been brain conditioned to news and news paper. How can they think in anger and drama? This used to be an intellectual land, let it stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.193.101 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo?

The current photo seems inappropriate to the context of the article. It's about how "allowing Muslims to do X means the terrorists have won" whereas the rest of the article seems to be about "not allowing right Y to continue means the terrorists have won". If anything I'd say the photo contradicts the usage of the phrase in the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Shut Up You Fucking Baby!, Sub Pop, 2002. The routine is found on the track on disc one entitled "Spiderman vs. Batman vs. Wonder Woman on the Rag."
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_terrorists_have_won/Archive_1&oldid=632149380"