Wikipedia:Terrorists category discussions/Archive 1
start
J for the record, I think this category is a very bad idea, because it will lead to edit conflicts and severe NPOV problems. I will do my best to make it more NPOV by including terrorists from all political ideologies and cultures. - pir 10:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I second that opinion. I don't think that a "terrorist" category can be NPOV. One can argue that there are well documented examples of the american government targeting civilians for political purposes. Perhaps someone should put this page up for deletion. Matt 12:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree as well. This category has an inherently POV character. -- Viajero 20:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion discussions
This is a list of discussions about Category:Terrorists. It includes both Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (the new name). Here are some searches of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for terrorism and terrorist: [1] and [2]. They pull up many discussions of various terrorism and terrorist categories. Add a year to narrow the search results. See also the top of Category talk:Terrorists and Category talk:Terrorism for links to discussions.
2004
- See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists/2004 for an archived discussion from 2004.
- See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/unresolved#Terrorism for discussion of related categories
2005
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 1#Category:Terrorists
- Result - No consensus (no change)
2006
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 28#Category:Terrorists
- Result - no consensus
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 1#Category:Terrorists by nationality and sub categories with the word "terrorist" in them
- Result - keep
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20#Terrorist categories
- Result - no consensus
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 23#Category:Terrorists
- Result - no consensus
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 31#Category:Terrorists (along with Category:Terrorists by nationality and subcategories)
- Result - delete
- Overturned by deletion review [3] and sent back to CFD
- Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 15#Category:Terrorists
- Result - no consensus
2008
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism" (along with many subcategories and Category:Terrorists).
- Result - Keep all
2009
stop
Abimael Guzmán
I think this whole category and all the subsidiary ones are hopelessly POV and should be deleted. That said, since the vote to delete these categories is not going anywhere, I would like to point out that Abimael Guzmán does not fit the definition of terrorist being used here. Guzmán is the chairman of the Communist Party of Peru, which is waging what it calls people's war (revolution). Accordingly, there is a regular armed conflict between the CPP and the Peruvian régime, one that has been on now for a quarter of a century. In addition, no one has given any evidence that Guzmán himself has personally carried out alleged "terrorist" acts, and recent reports from the BBC and other sources even point out that the Peruvian government accuses him in court of being the intellectual inspiration of the alleged acts rather than the person who performed them. Guzmán's name should therefore be removed from this list immediately.
Also, if anyone here would like to help me to make this point on Talk:Abimael Guzmán, I would appreciate the assistance. Two people there just don't understand, and I am quite exasperated from the discussion. Shorne 12:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Timothy McVeigh?
Could somebody please explain why Timothy McVeigh isn't included on this page? If I was looking for an argument I could probably come up with some grumble about the omission being a result of him being white and American, but I won't.
- You can find him: Category:Terrorists>Category:American terrorists.--AI 4 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
I noticed today that this article on an ancestor of a former Inca ruler, who fought against the Spaniards in Peru, is not in any Peru-related categories. While exploring the subcategories of Category:Peru I was rather displeased to notice that Category:Peruvian terrorists is probably the one he belongs in, according to the (forgive the pun) tortured definition given on this page. And this strikes me as obviously inappropriate (although if I were a Spaniard in Peru in the 18th century, I might say otherwise).
- I believe that it would be a mistake to include such an important figure in that category. We have to remember also that in those times, the definition of terrorist is imposible to apply, since the very word did not exist (in that sence) in that time. He was much more the leader of an insurrection against the Spanish Crown rather than a simple terrorist. Messhermit 04:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's all about POV, and the POV that the Spanish crown was right to colonize Peru is all but extinct now. I think this is the only reason Tupac Amaru is not viewed as a terrorist by anyone. I think that the subcategory Category:Persons convicted on terrorism charges is closer to the right idea. I'd like more comments though. Eliot 14:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Am I wrong? And if I'm not, does this indicate something profoundly wrong with the definition and the existence of the category at all? Can we discuss changing the name of the category to a less POV and more informative one? After all, since Wikipedia states that "There is no universally agreed upon definition of terrorism" it seems to be a clear violation of POV to use terrorism as an internal categorization criteria.
How about 'Militants' or something? Eliot 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
- I would said that Insurgents it's much more accurate. Messhermit 04:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, please click the link in the "Disclaimer" section of the category. You'll find out how it works:
- Yes, terrorists are difficult to define, so that's why the category uses a very "strict" definition, excluding all the borderline cases. The Inca ruler is in that border zone: there's no evidence he even was aware of the difference of terror applied to individuals, and terror applied to a community, leave alone there's proof he knew how to use it. The category defines terrorism as a specific intention of the one who uses it. If that intention is not documented the person does not belong in the category. The situation would've been different if, for example, the Inca ruler would've kept a diary in which he had written down that some day he discovered there was a sociological difference between trying to impress a person by killing one of his/her children, and impress a community by inducing terror, and if additionally he would've made clear that henceforth he was going to use the second technique, yes, then he could be added to the category; since, however, none of that nor anything in that sense is the case he is not put in the category. Whether yes or no he is included in other definitions of "terrorist" is not relevant for the wikipedia categorisation system: these other definitions might have relevance for terrorism article, but that's not what the category is about: it's about clear and undisputed examples.
- Also, since the "terrorist" category is a sensitive category, as defined by wikipedia:categorisation of people, it is advised to only apply the 4 or 5 most distinctive features of that person as "categories" to the wikipedia article on that person, which makes it even less likely anything near to "terrorists" would appear as a category at the bottom of this person's article.
- --Francis Schonken 11:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, please click the link in the "Disclaimer" section of the category. You'll find out how it works:
Karlheinz Stockhausen
I assume contemporary composer Karlheinz Stockhausen is listed as a terrorist because of his refering to Sept. 11 as a "work of art". It is my understanding, however, that he was in fact speaking of how the devil is still at work in the world, and Sept. 11 was Lucifer's greatest work of art. A journalist then decided the only part of this statement that mattered were the words "work of art", and made it seem as though Stockhausen believed Sept. 11th was the "greatest work of art".
- I suggest you move this comment to Talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen. Or you could try talking to the prankster directly, if you think he would care. Mirror Vax 13:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
The text here is scewed to make governments and there agents. " here understood as inducing, or convincingly threatening to induce, outside the operations of a regular armed conflict, a life-threatening situation in a community,". I don't reard "Shock and Awe" as "regular armed conflict". I don't regar the general.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- A former -longer- category definition contained an explicit reference to Shock and awe as being excluded from the quite strict definition of terrorist tactics used for the purposes of this category.
- I think I'd need to look where that part was left out of the category definition. Anyway, for me it would be OK to put it back.
- Please also read wikipedia:categorisation of people, which might help in getting some insight what this is about. --Francis Schonken 13:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Excluded why?. There is no reason to exclude it at all. 9/11 was shock and awe as was the GWII. Excluding them because of the perps. Is not a legitimate exclusion.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please, read wikipedia:categorisation of people, that explains the use of category definitions. If that's clear I don't think we would still have much of a disagreement. Or would we? --Francis Schonken 13:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Excluded why?. There is no reason to exclude it at all. 9/11 was shock and awe as was the GWII. Excluding them because of the perps. Is not a legitimate exclusion.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- You mean the entire cat should be deleted. In the mean time it should have the text decribing it marked as NPOV.--Son of Paddy's Ego 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, on the contrary, why would the cat need to be deleted? Whether it will be deleted, will be the result of the vote. And the NPOV template is not on its place, not before the vote, not during the vote and not after the vote. Do we agree? --Francis Schonken 22:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- No we don't.--Son of Paddy's Ego 23:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Some patience please! Vote takes a few days, we'll see from there. --Francis Schonken 23:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Removing NPOV's will get you blocked. Now leave it there where it beleongs. It is notable that you support the keeping of this cat. You just trying to prevent others from having there say and until you learn to you get beyond your own narrow political bias you should leave it there.--Son of Paddy's Ego 12:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, removing the {{NPOV}} template will not get me blocked, it is simply a template that, according to guidelines, does not belong in "category:" namespace. Removing the {{CategorisationDisputedPeople}} will not get me blocked as the criteria for inserting that template (that is: inclusion disputes resulting in a "no-include" on several talk pages of people included in the cat) are not met.
- And there are recommendations not to apply too many similar templates at the same time. --Francis Schonken 13:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- In your opinion. It is vandalism. Stop it now.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Was there supposed to be a reasonable refutation of my arguments in that comment? I can't see any. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that you have to refute mine not the other way around. You should not remove the NPOV untill the problems have been resolved. They have not.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I refuted them, again:
- {{NPOV}} is not a template that can be used in "category:" namespace.
- {{CategorisationDisputedPeople}} is not on its place here as the criteria for the inclusion of that template are not met.
- There is advise against using multiple templates with similar messages on the same page: {{SCD}} should suffise.
- I see no other arguments (except a vague attempt to confuse "terrorism" and "shock and awe", to which I replied too - did you still have problems with that refutation?)
- And I refuted Lulu's single argument, see below. I didn't even see you defend that argument. You have said I removed POV lines several times, well, yeah, I removed Lulu's "Redundant & POV line" several times, and explained on the talk page why I removed it - where's the fault?
- --Francis Schonken 09:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I refuted them, again:
- You are a vandal. You haven't refuted anything. You just restate you POV again and again.--Son of Paddy's Ego 12:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I refuted, for example: {{NPOV}} is not a template for "category:" namespace. Following relevant wikipedia guidelines is not a matter of POV. The other points of your criticism were refuted likewise. --Francis Schonken 12:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Refuting means cosiderabley more than just saying that the other person s wrong. Which is all you have done. You seem to be missing the point, it isn't for you to judge whether or not you have managed to refute the argumnets. --Son of Paddy's Ego 13:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not falsify perspective of categorization
It is absolutely clear that no group describes itself as terrorist. The editor who keeps trying to create the insinuation that individuals categorized in this category would self-describe as such is enormously deceptive. If you believe that any single group does so, please suggest their name here; absent that, please do not invent novel facts for the category page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Pierre Carette leader of the CCC (Cellules Communistes Combattantes) self-identified himself and his organisation as terrorist, even after he was released from prison in 2003.
--Francis Schonken 09:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I do not read Dutch, but from what I can make of the article you suggest, no support is given for this assertion. The CCC seems to be characterized as terrorist, but not to self-characterize as such. If you like, we could modify the category description to read "...no individual listed here..." to allow the possibility that some unlisted group or individual, somewhere, so self-identifies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
???? None of this is even relevant. In Category:Terrorists there is a category definition (as described in Wikipedia:Categorization of people). Category:Terrorists is not an article about terrorists. The category definition only says who goes in the category and who goes out, in wikipedia context. Surely, anybody endorsing having applied terrorist tactics can go in, that's what's in the last paragraph of the category definition now. Some people do endorse having applied terrorist tactics. Pierre Carrette did on the phone when he was still in prison, a few weeks before he was released. Whether Pierre Carette has an English Wikipedia article (or ever will have) is not relevant. Whether anyone else presently in the category has or has not endorsed terrorist tactics isn't relevant either. Saying that no terrorists groups ever endorse terrorism is a piece of POV not needed for the category definition (if you want to go and defend that POV in the terrorism article, fine by me, but I don't think anybody in his right mind would make such a POV generalisation that no terrorist ever would endorse terrorist logic).
So, to cut it short: what does it contribute to the category definition to have something there, that is (a) irrelevant, and (b) POV? --Francis Schonken 22:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Future edits
I have not looked at all the details behind the edits to this page, but from a cursory glance, it seems that there is a revert war brewing. If this continues, I will protect the category page without notice. The protected version is not an endorsement of the correctness of the page. It is simply one method to encourage more positive dialogue here. I am highly encouraging everyone who actively monitors and particpates with editing this page that they resolve as many of the outstanding issues on this talk page first.
Yes, there have been a few 3RR violations here on this page, and I am very inclined to block everyone involved for 48 hours - 24 hours more than the usual - and again, without warning. However, I want to give some opportunity for certain issues to be resolved first, and the blocking will not help. This post is to encourage some positive developments here. Thanks for your understanding. --HappyCamper 14:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tx!
- Normally we should be able to sort this out when we keep to:
- Does anyone have a problem with that? --Francis Schonken 15:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)