| Revision as of 19:57, 13 November 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits endorse deletion← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:34, 15 November 2006 edit undoTrialsanderrors (talk | contribs)Administrators17,564 edits →[]: Relist at CfD.Next edit → |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
====]==== |
|
|
Apologies for not using the template -- I couldn't get it to work with a category link! If someone smarter than I can fix it, that would be nice :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
] closed the ] as delete. On the CfD were 11 keep votes, 4 deletes (including nom), and several comments. In addition, the category survived several other prior nominations (]). I propose the deletion be '''overturned''', as the overwhelming consensus was '''keep'''. -- ] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn.''' "No consensus" would have been a reasonable outcome too, but there's certainly no clear basis for finding that there was a consensus to delete. ] 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' as above. There was clearly no consensus to delete. ] 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Query''' So this category will be including ] laureates ],], and ]? At the moment, they're not categorized as such ] 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**No, nor Mandela, nor Begin, nor Arafat would be categorised in this category in a foreseeable future, per ] and ]. In fact ''Menachem Begin'' is used as an example in ], and it is explained there why he would normally not be categorised in a "terrorists" (sub)category. --] 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** The tutorial text you point out reads:''So, as an example, there is no doubt a "significant minority" would consider Menachem Begin a state terrorist - while, however one turns it, this is not one of the 4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person, a "state terrorists" category will not be found at the bottom of the article of this person''. This line is misleading and possibly politically POV (in a Misplaced Pages tutorial!). The "significant minority" using the "terrorist" term in connection with Begin includes mainstream media channels such as the BBC and the US Government. And the usage doesn't describe Begin as a "state terrorist" but as a leader of a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter group which used terrorist tactics" in the struggle to create an independent state of Israel i.e. by definition, ''non-state terrorism''. Okay there may be a "significant minority" (are there surveys on this?) which label Begin as a ''state terrorist'' for whatever controversial military actions he ordered when Prime Minister (and this makes more sense then for the tutorial note), but this is not related to the BBC/US govt. description of his actions as an insurgency leader. And in any case, when on earth are categories restricted to the "4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person"? The general practice on Misplaced Pages is more like to load up as many pertinent categories as possible. (and certainly his experience as an insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter is not a marginal or minor part of Begin's life history). I'm going to take a look at changing this part of the tutorial. ] 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****True, the Begin example in the NPOV tutorial only discusses whether or not he should be categorised as "state terrorist". That doesn't make that example "misleading" nor "POV". It only discusses Begin in relation to a "state terrorist" category. Nothing less, nothing more.<br>Further, I'm convinced that for listing Begin in any "other" terrorist (sub)category the reasoning would be more or less the same (although there may be differences). If Begin was the leader of ], and Irgun is significant enough as organisation to have a separate category, then apply ] (or a subcategory of that category) to the Begin article. Whether the Irgun category is a (sub-)sub-category of (e.g.) ], or whatever, only rests upon the referenced content of the Irgun article, not upon the content of the Begin article.<br>Further, if there's no doubt that Begin was a terrorist, '''and''' if that "being a terrorist" is one of his key characteristics (well, I don't see that superseding his key characteristics as a political leader, as an orator, a peace negotiator, etc..) then he should be categorised a terrorist. What I mean by that is that we should not trash the "terrorists" category because the political climate might disfavour to categorise someone who is by all standards a terrorist (I always take ] as a prototypical example of a terrorist) as what (s)he is: a terrorist. Misplaced Pages is about knowledge. Knowledge doesn't always pass through the filters of "political correctness". If you thought that in Misplaced Pages knowledge is servant to "political correctness", I suppose there are still a few details you're missing. --] 12:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I think you're missing something rather more than a detail: no-one is a terrorist by ''all'' standards, and settling on ''a particular'' standard, which is what you're advocating, even in the (IMO very unlikely) event that it can be applied in an objectively NPOV manner, itself fails to be NPOV. Dismissing different POVs on the grounds of their "political correctness" is a pretty good indication of that. ] 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' It is worth noting that this has been discussed a few times before, but not previously deleted. ] appears to have been elevated to a guideline that is a part of the Manual of Style since the last discussion. But it is a guideline, not an overiding policy, and it says about this word in relevant part "There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below." That is only a caution, not even a statement that the word should usually be avoided. This was the only policy or guideline page referenced by the three delete opiners. The closing admin makes no reference to policy either. So I can't come up with a reason to endorse the close. (And parenthetically, as to Bwithh's examples, cases like those three are why I find the Nobel Peace Prize utterly meaningless. At least two of those three do belong in these categories, I don't know about the third.) ] 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well if you mean Nelson Mandela as the third, the US govt only provisionally took him off its global terrorist watch list in 2003 (decision to be reviewed in 10 years). (as for the Peace Prize itself, I don't think its utterly meaningless, though I do think of it as an often clumsily used tool of political symbolism that's inherently controversial. I know people in third world development circles who consider this year's award to ] and the ] a travesty. My original point was that this category must be properly inclusive. I'm sympathetic to the original CfD nominator's call for a more indirect title, as I think this is a better way of negotiating some inclusion controversies for e.g. certain "freedom fighters"/"terrorists" that have since become respected world leaders ] 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - There is no way this can be used in a NPOV way, and this it is appropriate to delete as per policy. --] 14:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**The problem is that there is no consensus that it is necessarily POV. ] 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***Also note that ] is the guideline that discusses the implementation of NPOV for people categories. The terrorists category (with its present category definition) is perfectly OK with that guideline. --] 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' After some reflection, would it be better in line with the recommendation to keep the overall category "terrorists" while creating some sub-categories that reflect current and past terrorist recognitions. My view would be to categorize, say, Nelson Mandela under: South Africans recognized as terrorists, Terrorists formerly recognized by the United States. Timothy McVeigh would be under: Terrorists recognized by the United States, Americans recognized as terrorists. This would allow us to show what entity defines another entity as a terrorist, as well as show entities that were once considered terrorists, etc. -- ] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Further Comment''' I created a proposed hierarchy at ]. I may be bold and implement it, but I would like some comments on it, and if other editors think it would be practical and beneficial. I posted it at ], ], and ]. |
|
|
**Wouldn't that end up with people like ] categorized by hundreds of "Terrorists recognized by X" categories? That doesn't seem like a very good solution. ] 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***I appreciate the criticism :) I changed the proposal some to remove that eventuality. -- ] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' — the current category definition has been widely discussed, has received consensus, and makes the category operational in accordance with the ] guideline and the ]. The "delete" close of the CfD was not justified by the discussions on that page, that were nearer to a ''consensus to keep'' than to a ''no consensus''. And even in the case of ''no consensus'' the category should've been kept. Same for all the subcategories proposed in the same vote. --] 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn and redelete'''. I don't see consensus, so the CfD should not have been closed that way. On the other hand, the category is inherently POV and useless, and should be deleted eventually.--] 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' there's got to be some better way to do this. Note, for instance, that everyone currently targeting American forces in Afghanistan or Iraq is labeled as a terrorist whereas people from, say, the ] are not. What exactly is the rationale for having ] labeled as a terrorist but not ] or ]. If countless news organization chose to be very careful in their use of this politically charged term, why shouldn't we? 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**No one should be labelled a terrorist just for targeting the U.S. military, just for intentionally targeting civilians, so remove them from the category if it's not applied correctly. I don't know of any usage of the term that would include such assassinations as you mentioned. Terrorists don't target civilians because their goal is to kill those particular civilians; the civilian deaths are just the means by which they attempt to get a government to act a certain way. Kennedy and King, like all political assassinations, were ends in themselves. ] 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::But the fact is that they ''are'' categorized as terrorists. In fact, every islamic militant is categorized as a terrorist, regardless of whether or not we have concrete evidence linking these individuals to civilian targets. And even with the definition that a terrorist is someone who kills civilians to get a government to act a certain way, then do you start considering the ] as a terrorist act? Is the ] a terrorist organization? Are the ] a terrorist organization? I am saddened to see that the Misplaced Pages community, which is usually so careful about maintaining NPOV, can so easily refuse to accept that the term "terrorist" is inherently political. Even if we do decide to have a very very precise definition and even assuming that we could somehow miraculously maintain the category to include only those individuals which verifiably meet those criteria, we know that most readers (and I would include myself here) have some different definition in mind. ] 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The term "terrorist" wasn't in common usage during WWII, or when the KKK was a bunch of lynch-mob murderers as opposed to just racist assholes in suits, so we wouldn't retroactively apply it to those prior periods in time any more than we would categorize people from Ancient Rome as terrorists. I'd consider another term, if there was one that meant and ''only'' meant "non-state actor whose m.o. is to intentionally target violence at civilians to influence government policy/action." I had thought "militant" might be it, but apparently not all "militants" target civilians. So that's out. "Terrorism" is an emotionally-laden term because violence intentionally targeting civilians is a widely condemned act. Just like ]. "Murder" may be used as a politically charged term too, but we don't avoid the designation, we just make sure those included fit the profile. Just like we should with ]. Once again, remove anyone who has not actually targeted civilians. ] 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Relist''', and make mine a postal vote for '''delete'''. If the categorisation guidelines can be construed as meaning that one can turn a POV term into an NPOV term just by making the definition precise in an arbitrary manner, which is at least borderline OR, then '''rewrite''' them to mandate (well, in a guidelineish sorts of way) avoidance of inherently POV categories entirely. ] 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse'''. The term "terrorist" is emotionally laden and tends to be POV, and as such is not a good categorization. ] 12:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse deletion''' - This is a clear case where the majority got it wrong. The term terrorist is inherently POV, as one nation's terrorist is another's savior. If we were to include anyone who was at one time described as a terrorist, pretty much anyone could be included, from ] to ] to ]. The term "terrorist" is ill defined, making the category equally as ill defined. ] 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**The criteria for inclusion is not "anyone who has been called a terrorist." George W. Bush is not a terrorist because he is not a non-state actor who intentionally targets civilians with violence to influence a government's policy. It's certainly arguable that Bush is a war criminal, but he doesn't fit the definition of terrorist. ] 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
***He doesn't fit ''that'' definition of a terrorist. The problematic area is, is ''the definition itself'' NPOV? (Not that GWB is going to be an especially tricky case.) ] 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
****The related problem is that most readers have some definition of terrorist in mind which is quite likely different than the one proposed here. I find it plain strange anyways that people that run a car of explosives into a group of army recruits is somehow characterized differently than someone who runs a car into a Shi'ah market. Categorizing various groups and individuals as terrorists is not helpful in understanding complex situations since it is utterly void of nuance. As I said above, I don't know why it is so hard to accept that the term is, especially in the English-speaking media, one that is used with such a variety of meanings and connotations. ] 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Overturn''' dubious decision, there are problems with the category but deletion will not necessarily be the solution. Vote counting isn't everything but to close this as delete without an ounce of explanation is bad play, and I'm afraid not the first time from Kbdank71. ] 13:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' - As the original nom I still stick by my comments. Someone said there that the category is not the problem but the listings themselves are. We have rules about the use of the term 'terrorist' which, by allowing this category to exist, are being circumvented. If I go through each person that is listed and apply our ] and ] rules there, I would remove the category. The majority in this case is very wrong, as the category simply is not NPOV.-]<sup>]</sup> 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:'''Comment''' ], in fact, does not say to avoid this term. It says that whether or not to use it is a matter of signficant debate. So you can't add or remove it based on WP:WTA. ] 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse Deletion''' Begin, Arafat, ], ], ]... there may be a few figures whose "support as a freedom-fighter" is so marginal that they could be called "terrorists" unqualifiably -- and I hope ] is one of those, personally, but I doubt he is, objectively -- but those few figures are dwarfed by the number of terrorists likely to be controversial. Category is more trouble than its worth; "more heat than light," as the saying goes... ] 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
|