| Revision as of 12:19, 19 December 2007 view sourceSceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,152 edits →Al-Qaeda not terrorists, just "Islamic militants"?: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:27, 19 December 2007 view source 69.138.16.202 (talk) →Al-Qaeda not terrorists, just "Islamic militants"?Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::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." ] (]) 12:10, 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." ] (]) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::]. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 12:18, 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.'' ] (]) 12:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:27, 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: 05:45, 24 December 2024 (GMT)
Only 51837 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)