Revision as of 12:27, 19 December 2007 view source69.138.16.202 (talk) →Al-Qaeda not terrorists, just "Islamic militants"?← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:48, 19 December 2007 view source 69.138.16.202 (talk) →Al-Qaeda not terrorists, just "Islamic militants"?Next edit → | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
'''''Most''' scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, '''because they claim the former do not''' use established historical methodologies as revisionists do.'' ] (]) 12:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | '''''Most''' scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, '''because they claim the former do not''' use established historical methodologies as revisionists do.'' ] (]) 12:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::::Still, can you explain why the word "terrorist" is not a POV term? You can hold the ''point of view'' that al-Qaeda are terrorists, but it's not fact until al-Qaeda themselves say they are. They are a militant organisation as they've admitted that much. But we can't say they're terrorists as people can say easily say they're freedom fighters. (both terms are as extreme as each other, and the opposite POV can be held by millions in the Middle East) ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Every term bears some kind of POV, even the term "Islamic militant group." They have characterized their violence as defensive rather than offensive. As an example of what I mean, should we refer to the ] as an "American militant organization"? Al-Qaeda does not have millions of supporters in the Middle East. And, in any case, you yourself have argued that extremists use NPOV to create articles which lean in their favor. Lastly, the term "terrorist" is used pretty abundantly throughout the entire article on Al-Qaeda. Wait, nevermind. It looks like you've removed several of them! ] (]) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:48, 19 December 2007
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
edit Some handy links I'm still around, pottering away, editing where I need to.
The current local time is: 19:20, 24 December 2024 (GMT)
Only 51842 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!
edit Sceptre's talk page: Archive 35 edit Archives
| |||||||||
Current talk
| |||||||||
Bot | IP | RfA | |||||||
| |||||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 |
41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 |
51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 |
Al-Qaeda not terrorists, just "Islamic militants"?
I saw your revert on al-Qaeda. I don't think it's dreadfully POV to call Al-Qaeda a "terrorist" organization. Whether you're Liberal or Conservative, Socialist or Nazi, I think we can all agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are terrorists. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree they are terrorists. But it's still a point of view - there's the old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - and thus should not be in article-space. We can say they are classed as terrorists by country X, Y, and Z, but we can't convery an opinion themselves. Will 11:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral POV does not mean no POV. Calling them terrorists is not a controversial opinion, but a fact, according to the definition of terrorism by every state agency and public policy think-tank. Only Islamic extremists themselves dispute the claim of terrorism. NPOV is not a consensus between the mainstream and the fringe. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read this: "Let the facts speak for themselves" - this is what I'm trying to say. There may and probably is be a sizeable portion of people who think al-Qaeda are doing the "Right Thing™" and are not terrorists, so the word remains POV unless otherwise. Will 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't apply to extremist views, because fairness of tone with regard to extremism is non-NPOV. Imagine an article on the Holocaust which read, "The overwhelming majority of scholars believe the Holocaust happened. However, some dispute the existence of the Holocaust." 69.138.16.202 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. They receive a blanket condemnation from "scholars," who judge their methodology as poor, which is a POV. From the article on Holocaust denial:
Many Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead. Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.
Based on what you said above, this should be changed to read:
Most scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, because they claim the former do not use established historical methodologies as revisionists do. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Still, can you explain why the word "terrorist" is not a POV term? You can hold the point of view that al-Qaeda are terrorists, but it's not fact until al-Qaeda themselves say they are. They are a militant organisation as they've admitted that much. But we can't say they're terrorists as people can say easily say they're freedom fighters. (both terms are as extreme as each other, and the opposite POV can be held by millions in the Middle East) Will 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Every term bears some kind of POV, even the term "Islamic militant group." They have characterized their violence as defensive rather than offensive. As an example of what I mean, should we refer to the Sons of Liberty as an "American militant organization"? Al-Qaeda does not have millions of supporters in the Middle East. And, in any case, you yourself have argued that extremists use NPOV to create articles which lean in their favor. Lastly, the term "terrorist" is used pretty abundantly throughout the entire article on Al-Qaeda. Wait, nevermind. It looks like you've removed several of them! 69.138.16.202 (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)