Category talk:Terrorists/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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

see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists

This is a list of discussions about deleting Category:Terrorists

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 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 [1] and sent back to CFD
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 15#Category:Terrorists
Result - no consensus

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)

Túpac Amaru II

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)

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)
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)
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)

--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)

So your "refutation" consists of the completely unevidenced claim that there is one person in the world, who does not have a Wikipedia article, who is not in the category, who belongs to an organization (with a Dutch article only) that does not describe itself as terrorist, who is alleged to have claimed to himself be a terrorist?! Who was he on the phone with making this alleged comment, you?
A live show on French-language Belgian state-controlled radio, causing quite a stirr here in Belgium. Then his parole was delayed. Then, on advise of his lawyer, he asked that interview would no more be broadcast (which in Belgium can be asked), because, apparently, you couldn't get out of prison claiming still to be a terrorist - he constructed some sort of reasoning that he wouldn't do any further terrorist acts, because in the early 21st century methods had changed, but if he would've been still living in the 1980s, he would still use the terrorism method for achieving his goals, while, according to his saying, that was what one did in those days for achieving one's goals, the times were thus. Then, with a week or so delay he was released. Then, the whole press was at his doorstep for an interview. In all those interviews he avoided much terrorism talk, but repeated he endorsed all the previous.
Of course, the fact that no one themselves claims to be a "terrorist" is at the very heart of the category. It's nearly the core definition of the categorization, regardless of what you might want to falsify. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
No, IMHO, that is not the heart of the category. Why would it be? I've seen no argument, I've not even seen you try to bring forward an argument, why that would need to be the "heart" of the category definition? What would that improve the cat definition? It doesn't help a step in sorting out who goes in and who goes out of the cat. --Francis Schonken 21:52, 9 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)
We have done they are fine as they are until the POV in definition is removed, the definition as currently constructed labels only a subset of terrorists.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
wikipedia:categorisation of people specifically advises to make sensitive categories "subsets", in the sense of limiting to "undoubted cases". Have you a problem with that?
Re. templates used: no will do. "Category" templates only. And only those applicable. --Francis Schonken 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not limited to the undoubted, which is undefinable. The effect of the phrase operations of a regular armed conflict is subject to POV.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I simply don't understand what you mean by "subject to POV"? The way you use it appears as if any statement is "subject to POV"? could you please explain what you mean by "subject to POV"?
I'll give you an example. In some earlier discussion (well, about a year ago) some people defended that categories could not be used for anything that couldn't be clearly defined. One of the examples given at the time, was for example people - while one wanted a clear separation of the categories of people (clearly definable) separated from categories for fictional characters (also supposedly clearly definable). When you start to think about it no but absolutely no category is clearly definable. I could give some examples of borderline fictional characters, of whom it was not absolutely clear whether they were people or fictional; later I had fun expanding that to what is now the list of borderline fictional characters. So, when working with categories, a first thing one has to accept is that every category has borderline issues or said otherwise, nothing is clearly definable.
But above I should have given you the *exact* quote of wikipedia:categorisation of people. I said "undoubted cases"; the full quote is: "For some sensitive categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples"; well, that approach should work I suppose.
Re. templates: can we finally agree to use *only* category templates and no other? --Francis Schonken 23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: presently one can click Category:People → Category:People by occupation → Category:Musicians → Category:Fictional musicians - Would you consider that "subject to POV", that a "fictional character" is somewhere in a subcategory of the "people" category?
operations of a regular armed conflict, who decides what is regular armed conflict? That phrase eliminates a whole group on the basis of a point of view. If freedom fighters where excluded it would be just as biased. Yo cannot define either the phrase freedom fighters or regular armed conflict, they are not phrases with common meaning. --Son of Paddy's Ego 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Still don't see the problem. Is your problem "that it can't be defined"? Or is your problem "that it eliminates a whole group"? - Well, if it can't be defined it would not eliminate a whole group, would it? So, please make up your mind. I think we're still trying to sort out a false problem. A problem that is not really a problem.
I also see that you refuse to answer my question whether we agree we henceforth use only "Category:" templates and no other. --Francis Schonken 08:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
No I'll use what ever is appropriate. You need to get at least a basic education in logic before you continue.--Son of Paddy's Ego 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do not make changes on a unilateral basis, and please avoid the use of intensifiers in the discussion. I don't think it is in the best interests of anyone to have this degenerate any further. --HappyCamper 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, Paddy, like HappyCamper suggests, let's get back on track. I don't see this going anywhere if we can't at least agree on the framework within which we go about with categories. For me that's clearly:

Can we at least agree that is the framework within which we work on categories?

Thanks!

--Francis Schonken 22:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Core of the NPOV dispute

I can definitely see some merit in considering this category POV. For instance, I don't see any anything related to state terrorism, even though this is one of the many categories of things-one-or-another-notable-group-calls-terrorism covered in the article terrorism. This seems to be closely related to the issue of "regular armed conflict". There is no clear definition in the linked-to article (war) which might guide us in determining which armed conflicts should qualify. But whether or not regular armed conflicts should be excluded is a matter of opinion, about which there is considerable disagreement. I think that to maintain NPOV here, multiple overlapping definitions should be accomodated. But keeping state and non-state "terrorism" distinct is useful, because many people are curious about or doing research on the former but not the latter, or vice versa.

Wikipedia:Categorization of people recommends having a good working definition, but it does not really tell us what a good working NPOV or Multiple-POV defintition for "terrorist" is.

Because "state terrorism" relies on the decisions of an entire state government (possibly including a parliament of hundreds of elected officials) and the working contributions of thousands, if not millions of individuals, it might not be practical to simply add a subcategory here devoted to "state terrorists". I would at least add a link to state terrorism in the intro, as an alternative starting place for people who might be interested in a list of important biographies on that topic. I notice we have no category for war criminals, though we do have Category:Criminals, Category:War crimes, Crime against humanity, and War crime.

If someone would attempt to make this category and its description page more inclusive, perhaps that would resolve the NPOV dispute. -- Beland 03:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Beland, contrary to what you say, Wikipedia:Categorization of people gives some indication how to handle POV/NPOV issues for categories, for instance:

It is preferable that the category definition (on the category page) tries to exclude vague and/or non-Neutral point of view (NPOV) cases. In many cases, only referencing a wikipedia article explaining the term is not sufficient as a definition for a category. This is true for almost every sensitive category. If the article you want to use as definition is problematic in itself, consider improving the article. Otherwise, or if that is not sufficient, write a definition of what goes in and what goes out of the category on the category page, with the reference article(s) as background information.

As you claim yourself "state terrorism" is vague (while you say yourself "state terrorists" are not even all includable in a "terrorists" category), so, according to the guideline, what is vague is better defined as being out of the category, even if that limits the category. That is the best way to maintain NPOV for categories, as is described in the guideline presently.
The other thing discussed on this page, whether or not to include shock and awe, first, please read that article, and you'll see that it is at least "non-NPOV" whether or not to include those who practice "shock and awe" in a terrorists category. On the other hand, that article draws a clear line between "shock and awe" and "terrorism", the former being part of a regular armed conflict. That line allows to exclude these "non-NPOV" cases of the "terrorists" category, again, according to the "categorisation of people" guideline.
If you want to change the guideline, that's another issue. If that would be successful, yeah, maybe a lot of "people" categories would need reviewing, while it is a rather fundamental change you propose.
So for the time being I suggest keeping to the POV/NPOV recommendations in the categorisation of people guideline, while adding "terrorists" category to a number of winners of the Noble prize for Peace, is not the way forward on this one, I'm afraid. --Francis Schonken 07:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that at least one user only wants people in this cat they don't like.--Son of Paddy's Ego 13:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is that every editor only wants people in this cat whom they don't like. (except some of us don't want anyone here because we recognize the POV of that... but even I would have even more consternation over the inclusion of people whom I do like than I do over those whom I think are merely badly categorized). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I put it up for deletion.--Son of Paddy's Ego 17:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So, whatever these problems are, can we at least agree to address them with the tools described in wikipedia:categorisation of people and Wikipedia:Template messages/Category namespace? --Francis Schonken 14:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with it is the text now not the messages.--Son of Paddy's Ego 17:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia:categorisation of people is about more than messages, so if you want to change the category text, can we agree to follow the methods and recommendations of wikipedia:categorisation of people and Wikipedia:Template messages/Category namespace? --Francis Schonken 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We are doing we just aren't following your rather perverse interpretation. Leave everything as it is. I note that English isn't your firstlanguage, I think this may be part of the problem. Also can you tell me how old you are? --Son of Paddy's Ego 13:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, we can't very well discuss interpretation if we don't agree which one we're interpreting I suppose...

I think your question about my age not so very appropriate, but anyhow, my user page has a few external links by which it is possible to get an approximation of my age (there's no secret about it).

So, can we agree, if we talk about interpretation, that that is about the interpretation of how to apply:

-and-

? --Francis Schonken 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Of you go trying to change the subject again. Most people, other than you, understand what this is about, which is you desire to have a nice neat cat which conforms to you biggotry. Now either address the bigotry and NPOV in the text or shut up. One or the other.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see where wikipedia:categorisation of people and Wikipedia:Template messages/Category namespace would be off-topic in this discussion. I don't even think we should be doing anything else on this talk page than discussing the interpretation of these guidelines, and how they could be implemented in order to sort out problems regarding category:terrorists - do you have another view on that? --Francis Schonken 16:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.

Here's the first step I propose:

Step one (proposal) 
Replace {{NPOV}} by {{Cleancat}} (the "category" variant)

Does anyone have a problem with that? --Francis Schonken 18:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it as it is, you canot get approval for your mods by default. Stop trying to manipulate the system.--Son of Paddy's Ego 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, what is your problem with changing the non-cat template ("NPOV") to the more appropriate cat template ("Cleancat")? --Francis Schonken 20:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Would there be any problem to having both in the category page? If not, I will add it in 3 days. --HappyCamper 23:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see over-templatisation[2] as one of the current problems with the text of Category:Terrorists. Presently there are:

I would not change that to:

Besides which one ({{NPOV}} or {{cleancat}}) should go first then?

So I propose:

For the time being - I think even using all three of the available "dispute"-type templates for categories not all that good for a long period of time, and I think we should end that as soon as we can agree, what do you think? --Francis Schonken 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't really mind either way. I'm more interested to see that we move on from deciding which templates to use and such. After all, this is a very difficult category to deal with, and it would be great if we can turn this into one of those collaborative successes on Wikipedia, where even a controversial subject such as this can be dealt with effectively. --HappyCamper 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
More than agree on that one. Since I was maybe a bit fast earlier on (well, I know this cat for over a year, in the end one starts to see a sort of pattern in the problems that occur every now and then, that's maybe why I should have taken it a bit slower earlier, it's not because I got accustomed to the sort of problems that occur, that others immediately get the broader picture) - so for that reason I was proposing to take it one step at a time (but of course prefer not to do steps backwards). --Francis Schonken 22:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Better now?

Okay, well, it's nice to see that the reversions have stopped on this page - no edits have been made since the 9th. I think this is a sign that perhaps we're moving in the correct direction - a plus! --HappyCamper 22:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, so let's move on to the next step, which both in your proposal and in my proposal would imply an edit. --Francis Schonken 15:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Well, I'm personally not going to change the content at the moment since I'm not familiar with this topic, so you're on your own. I'll perhaps monitor this a little bit more though before I move on to something else. Could you perhaps try to make the changes in say, a week? For something like this, it's rather difficult to describe the equilibrium that everyone will be happy with, and it's probably much easier to comment on the final product you have in mind when it is produced, rather than all the incremental small changes which are necessary to get there. It seems that Paddy is more comfortable with this current version, so if your changes turn out to be undesirable, let's revert back to this one, and attempt another cycle of editing where Paddy gets a chance to do the same thing. I'm well aware this is somewhat of a different approach towards editing, but let's give it a try so that at least both editors ideas have a chance to come to full fruition. --HappyCamper 17:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't have an "end result" in mind. The best I could come up with would be the version I produced 09:47, 9 October 2005 (diff), apart from a minor lay-out difference the same as I had produced a month earlier (diff) - as that was a "brewing edit war" version, and even more because I have no claim whatsoever on the content of the category description, I suppose the step-by-step approach would be better, deciding on every next step, depending on the result of the previous, in consensus, by talk on this page.
The other approach, the one you propose, has too much of a jump defreezing of a heads-on edit war. The situation would've been different if there had been more quality communication between Paddy, Lulu, Phase1 (who reverted to my version in the early stages of the "brewing edit war", but never visited the talk page) and myself. But this didn't happen, the communication kept more or less past each other thus far, for the four people involved in editing the category page.
So I won't wait a week for the step I proposed above (I haven't seen anyone bringing an argument forward against it), and hope to decide with others on the interval & content for the step following after that. --Francis Schonken 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, whatever you think is best. But from my perspective, if no one responds, you might as well attempt the changes and see what happens. I don't know what else to say. --HappyCamper 18:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I strongly oppose Francis Schonken's proposed change to insert the insinuation that some individuals/groups self-describe as "terrorist". Including the core fact that the categorization is always and only an external perspective on a person's actions is absolutely essential. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
??? I always said I didn't think this relevant to the category definition, so I never proposed to insert the insinuation that some individuals/groups self-describe as "terrorist". What are you talking about? --Francis Schonken 07:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there any common ground that we can begin with? Perhaps the existence of this category? --HappyCamper 20:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I recognize that none of the CfD's against the category, so far, have reached consensus. As long as clearly inappropriate articles are kept out of the category, and the text remains pretty much as it is (mainly in not falsely purporting self-identification), I think that's the best we can do while the cat exists. In particular, along with keeping out names of individuals whom particular editors simply have a grudge against, we should keep out categorically inappropriate articles (such as organizations rather than individuals). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC).
I don't see a problem to proceed with step one, as proposed above, then. --Francis Schonken 07:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I entirely agree with Francis Schoken on this point. I don't think the NPOV tag is the right one for a category. And it is also true that when I last looked, none of the names listed had currently active disputes on their talk pages (regarding categorization); there had been some problem ones in that regard, but I think not now (which doesn't mean that I think there should not be disputes about some of them... but me just thinking in my own head that an inclusion is wrong isn't the same as pursuing it on an article talk page). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd throw my voice out there as another to remove the NPOV warning, but leave the "Inclusion" warning. My how this category has diminished since I was here last ;) Sherurcij 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, if I counted correctly, that's 3 users who agree on removing the NPOV tag. I'll be bold and remove it right now. If it needs re-tagging, feel free to add it, but please, do it carefully :-) --HappyCamper 00:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
notes
  1. ↑  I know there's some policy about this (and if it isn't, I suppose there should be), anyway the point I try to make can also be clarified by this BJAODN --Francis Schonken 09:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Next step

I propose {{CategorisationDisputedPeople}} to be replaced by {{cleancat}}.

The talks, on this page, regarding the category text had not been concluded yet; and it seems a bit awkward to ask people to recategorise, when the category definition is still worked on.

Anyone having a problem with that proposed template change? --Francis Schonken 05:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Francis Schonken that "cleancat" looks like the most appropriate "disputed" type template for this category. I have not personally seen any actively disputed names listed lately. However, I'm not quite on board with the suggested notion that a category text is an involatile thing as soon as some articles are categorized. Everything on WP evolves; which is good, not bad. Obviously, I've expressed a strong opinion on a particular aspect of what the text should include (and is currently); but that doesn't mean that I think the category text is fixed in stone (not even the part I find important, if the same concept about non-self-attribution had a better phrasing). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. We should not expect the text of the category to remain static. However, once we have settled on a good wording, I hope it would be robust enough that it would not need to be changed too much. Seeing that there is agreement with the template, I'll go ahead with template change.
I should mention in passing that Son of Paddy's Ego was blocked today by David Gerard for being a sockpuppet of Irate. In light of this, I'll continue to monitor this category a bit longer. --HappyCamper 01:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Re. Paddy: my intuition was right then, diff
Re. "We should not expect the text of the category to remain static" - I have no preference for more "static" nor for more "dynamic": "We should not expect the text of the category to change every few weeks" is IMHO as viable. Instead of the choice between "static" and "dynamic" (which is IMHO missing the point), I prefer the text of the category to be the best we can put together, which it will stay until someone comes foreward with something better. --Francis Schonken 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm good with that too. I just wasn't sure what your next suggested steps were... --HappyCamper 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the next thing is to discuss whether

The term terrorist is not used by any group to describe itself, but is frequently used by opponents of political groups and individuals to describe them.

should be included in the category text or not.

Above Lulu said about that sentence "...It's nearly the core definition of the categorization..."

to which I replied with a question "No, IMHO, that is not the heart of the category. Why would it be? I've seen no argument, I've not even seen you try to bring forward an argument, why that would need to be the "heart" of the category definition? What would that improve the cat definition? It doesn't help a step in sorting out who goes in and who goes out of the cat."

I never got an answer to these questions: Lulu has restated a few times that this sentence is "very important" to him, never explaining why it would be all that important. So I suppose I think it's about time Lulu explains why this sentence is all that important in his eyes, while in my eyes this sentence has no importance to the category definition. For my part I think I have explained above why for me this sentence seems not important at all, and should best be left out. --Francis Schonken 07:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not seen any such explanation by Francis Schonken. Just one convoluted and alleged (but unsupported) example of a person without a WP article who allegedly called himself that. By not making this point clear, it very strongly insinuates that some individuals or groups describe themselves in those terms (as I wrote lots of times above), and that is a false insinuation. The term "terrorist" is very perspectival: the term, if it can have any NPOV meaning, must describe a specific (prevalent, but not universal) way of conceiving the actions of particular individuals. A clause like that quoted above (and I think added by me originally, or at least I added something similar) provides readers with a sense of the perspectival nature of the characterization. I guess something like the word "heresy" or "heterodoxy"—they have meaning not by the inherent beliefs propounded, but in their relationship to a more widespread "orthodoxy." Same thing for terrorist vs. "freedom fighter", "guerrilla", "insurgent", etc. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
How about this approach instead? We relinquish the goal of making the definition of "terrorist" NPOV, and instead propose a set of criteria as close as NPOV as possible to classify the set of names or entities which should be on the list. Then, in the category, we can say something like Due to the intrinsic difficulty of qualifying the term "terrorist", for the purposes of this classification, the following list of criteria have been adopted...We take into consideration X, Y, Z, etc... --HappyCamper 03:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Relinquishing NPOV is not a solution I would even consider. Sorry.

But again, wikipedia:categorization of people is the guideline that gives guidance on how to apply NPOV to categories in these somewhat more difficult cases. That's why I took so much time asking again and again whether we agreed we would keep to that guideline to get this thing solved.

I have no problem to explain again: the text of a category is not intended as an explanation of what terrorists are. It is not a definition of terrorists in that sense. Here I add something I accidently heard on the radio yesterday: not so long ago there has been a United Nations megaconference in New York. At that conference terrorism was condemned by all participants (which are about all nations of the whole globe). On the other hand, the UN representant that was interviewed yesterday, said that the UN had, thus far, not been successful in defining terrorism. I don't think we are supposed to do better than what all the smartest minds of the earth, gathered in on a top conference could not do. That is not the point here, for a category definition. All these different views of the true nature of terrorism go in the terrorism article.

A Category definition, on the other hand, tries to single out these cases that would be called terrorist in a very strict definition of the term, while wikipedia:categorization of people says: "It is preferable that the category definition (on the category page) tries to exclude vague and/or non-Neutral point of view (NPOV) cases."

So in other words, you wish to avoid stating a definition, while putting in anyone who would be categorized under a "very strict definition". Which seems to reduce to "Terrorist == Someone Francis Schonken doesn't like". Do I understand pretty much correctly? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
No, the idea is rather to take a definition that only includes people for which there is a broad acceptance that they can be indicated as terrorists. My preference has nothing to do with it. A category definition of a sensitive category is rather looking for the common denominator: that means: a definition that leads to inclusion of only those persons of which most people would say: "ah, yes, that is a good example of a terrorist". --Francis Schonken 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So the inclusive approach (as also defended by Beland above) is rather something for lists than for categories, see wikipedia:categories, lists, and series boxes. For lists there is no need to use such restrictive definition of what goes on the list.

Anyway, my main argument was not so much that the sentence proposed by Lulu was POV (it is POV, but in fact that's not my main argument). The main argument is that it is redundant for a category definition. Whether or not terrorists self-identify as terrorists is IRRELEVANT to the category definition, while it doesn't help to distinguish which persons go in the category and which ones don't. If a person self-identifies as terrorist (which does not occur all that often, agreed), but indeed if a person self-identifies as terrorist (s)he should not be excluded a priori from the category (and Lulu's sentence deforms the category definition thus that a priori self-identifying terrorists would be excluded).

I'll give an example that maybe further clarifies what I mean. Suppose there is a category of "Belgian prime ministers". Suppose someone adds to the category definition "There are only male Belgian prime ministers". Which would be correct in the article on Belgian prime ministers: up till now no woman was ever prime minster in Belgium. But for a category definition that description of the sex of Belgian prime minsters would be irrelevant, even if no woman would ever become prime minister in Belgium. It is just not something that helps in distinguising which persons go in the category, and which ones don't. Similarly, whether or not terrorists self-identify as terrorists, does not help in singling out persons that in a strict definition would be terrorists.

This is almost unbelievably dissimulative. There is no way for one second that FS fails to understand the difference between the politically laden term "terrorist" and "Belgian prime minister". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course I understand the difference between the politically laden term "terrorist" and the non-sensitive categories containing prime ministers:
  1. The example was meant to clarify that even a non-sensitive category would get a tricky, destabilising, and ultimately POV, category definition if applying the same technique as you propose for the terrorists category. So, for the sensitive categories it is even more to be avoided to use this technique.
  2. Also, for a category that is thus "politically laden", like terrorists, the category definition attempts to hit a low key regarding all that political electricity. That is: using a definition that avoids as much as possible to acerbate that kind of tensions. A definition that helps treating terrorists as neutral and detached as possible.
--Francis Schonken 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So, two questions:

  • Whether or not you agree, do you understand the point I try to make?
  • Could Lulu please tell me why he thinks the non-selfidentification issue to be "...nearly the core definition of the categorization..."?

--Francis Schonken 06:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

After having explained why the perspectival issue is central a half dozen times on this page, I have no idea how to say it again in words that FS would not pretend were absent. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, no: you just stated a half dozen times that you think the perspectival issue to be central. I'd like to learn why you think it to be central. That might help in understanding each other better. --Francis Schonken 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems that this discussion is deadlocked again. Francis, you mentioned something about redundancy earlier. Could you explain further what you meant by that? Why is having redundancy not desirable for this article? I didn't understand that part. --HappyCamper 03:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about "deadlocked" - maybe, just finished. As in "the point was made clear".
Redundancy: I didn't mean redundance as in wikipedia:redundancy is good (which is an essay I like!) - I meant redundance as, for example, there being a lot of "redundant" templates in this example. And as in it being redundant to state in a category definition of Belgian prime ministers that they are all male. That's an OK observation for the article on Belgian prime ministers. But a category definition is not an article. When sorting out which persons belong in the Belgian prime minister category, the fact that they are male is a redundant piece of information in the selection procedure, as would be, for example, their color of hair or shoe size. The only "selection criteria" involved is them being prime minister. That's what a category definition aims at: stating no more than a clear, operational (set of) selection criteria. Other accessory/circumstantial info goes in the related article. Maybe my choice of word was not right, but I think you get what I meant by now (and if you have a better word to express that, might I ask you to suggest it?)
Also to you (as to anyone else) this question: Whether or not you agree, do you understand the point I try to make?
--Francis Schonken 07:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The anti-definition

The dishonest and irrelevant "arguments" advanced by Francis Schonken are certainly frustrating. I'm not going to engage in the pseudo-logic and strained analogies he goes on with. (e.g. the weird digression about male Belgian PMs).

But here's the central thing: FS opposes having any real definition of a terrorist for the category (which somehow means the same thing as "strict definition... it baffles me). So the only way anyone could decide whether to classify a given article this way is based on "what the person is called"... i.e. someone calls them "terrorist", so they're in the category. Given that the category is only about being called a certain way by someone, it is at the exact core of the matter to clarify who is doing the calling. And the very first feature of that is that the individual so-called is never so-called by themselves, but by some outside party(s). Without the clarification, every single name listed must be absolutely excluded from the category (which wouldn't necessarily be bad, but is opposite of the goal of category-inclusionist FS).

Actually, if the caller was not left so nebulous, the category would be a bit less non-sensical. For example, even though I know it is a horribly politically biased agenda, it is a determinate and verifiable question of which groups are on the "US State Department terrorist watchlist" (well, except probably some of it is classified, so not actually verifiable). I don't think US State so-classifies individuals though, so it's couldn't quite be this category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The category definition

Could we agree to do this the WP:CIVIL way? I mean, there's no need to call anyone's argumentation dishonest, unless of course you can't assume good faith on me: in that case, just say so, and I'd gladly leave this to HappyCamper or any other sysop.

Regarding Lulu's argumentation:

  1. "FS opposes having any real definition of a terrorist for the category" - On the contrary: there are many definitions of what a terrorist is. But for a category definition Wikipedia can only choose one of these definitions. I propose - perfectly in line with wikipedia:categorisation of people - not to choose the most inclusionist definition, while that could lead to problematic categorisations. I used "strict definition" in the meaning of "non-inclusionist" definition.
  2. "Given that the category is only about being called a certain way by someone, it is at the exact core of the matter to clarify who is doing the calling." - Well, the sentence you proposed does none of that clarification: it indicates the callers as "opponents of political groups and individuals", which is as vague and inclusionist as could be. Every journalist would qualify as being an "individual", and if in a tabloid or whatever he would call a political opponent a terrorist, for Lulu that would be enough to categorise that opponent as terrorist in wikipedia. That would only work for lists where the reference can be given who the caller is. For categories, however, that doesn't work, while there could be someone else explicitly calling the same person not a terrorist: see for example this newspaper article explaining such controversy - such article could be used as a reference for a list; but for categories it's not possible to make such references, so there's not much of an other possibility than to make the category definition thus that it excludes vague and non-NPOV cases (and that's exactly as it is described in the guideline).
  3. "Without the clarification, every single name listed must be absolutely excluded from the category" - sorry, no, the clarification about verifiability that is now in the category definition is clear enough: verbatim it says: "For verifiability of articles included in this category: individuals included in this category should have admitted to, or endorsed, violence against civilians in a terrorist logic, or at least the use of terrorist tactics should be well-documented and undisputed." This sentence does not exclude self-identifying terrorists, but neither does it exclude terrorists that would never self-identify as such. But it does exclude unfounded name-calling by political opponents (which overcame, for example, more than one Noble Peace Prize winner). Could you name one person included in the category for whom the sentence "the use of terrorist tactics should be well-documented and undisputed" would not apply?
  4. "[...] category-inclusionist FS" - sorry, no, in the spectre of people occupied in categories at wikipedia, I'm rather to be situated at the non-inclusionist end. For lists, on the other hand, working with references allows much more inclusion.
  5. Regarding "US State Department terrorist watchlist" (or whatever other external list): I think Lulu himself experiences how difficult it is to put that in practice as selection criteria for a wikipedia category: even when limiting to reputable sources like "US State Department terrorist watchlist", Lulu has to admit such lists can have a horribly politically biased agenda. That's why I don't believe in such lists (and even less in a vague definition of callers) to be usable in a category definition, and propose that wikipedia uses its own criteria, fitting for the wikipedia categorisation system, as indicated by the present guidelines.

Again: Whether or not you agree, do you understand the point I try to make? --Francis Schonken 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Could you name one person included in the category for whom the sentence "the use of terrorist tactics should be well-documented and undisputed" would not apply? Sure: Every single name listed! (now or at any time since the category has existed). Every one of them claims to be a "guerrilla", or a "freedom fighter" , or a "liberator", or something else other than a terrorist. I have no idea what a "terrorist logic" is in the face of a staunch refusal to define it.
Basically, I have not the foggiest idea what point Francis Schonken believes he is making. The closest I can come is that a terrorist is someone who is a terrorist, but we cannot define what a terrorist is, except FS knows one when he sees one. I think he believes there's some other point there, but I cannot begin to catch any glimmer of what it might be. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Re: "Every single name listed! (now or at any time since the category has existed)" - I don't see how one could be more vague. Please state concrete objections. I go from the assumption that for every person listed in this category the categorisation is OK with the content of the article on that person.
"I have no idea what a "terrorist logic" is in the face of a staunch refusal to define it." - Again, please keep it WP:CIVIL. There's no "staunch refusal to define terrorist logic". The definition of terrorist logic contained in the present version of the category definition is:

inducing, or convincingly threatening to induce, outside the operations of a regular armed conflict, a life-threatening situation in a community, with the objective of exploiting, for purposes that are broader than personal gain, the possible weakness of a community that experiences collective terror

I contributed to the writing down of that definition of terrorist logic a long time ago, so your language that there would be a "a staunch refusal to define it" is plainly offensive. --Francis Schonken 11:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
How much more concrete is it possible to be?! It is not the case that there exists a name, such that for that name, the use of terrorist tactics is well-documented and undisputed. Because FS insists that we cannot say what a terrorist tactic is, specifically (as opposed to e.g. "freedom fighter" tactics). And no name is undisputed by that person themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
"FS insists that we cannot say what a terrorist tactic is": I'm warning you again, for the third time in a short time to stop your insults & offensive language, please keep it WP:CIVIL. Where on earth did you get "FS insists that we cannot say what a terrorist tactic is"? My words said nothing in that sense; the way you deformed my words to the opposite of what I said is quite insulting, and I ask you to stop that.
Re. "undisputed", I think I see your point. I had taken "undisputed" in the sense of "something about which there is consensus". If there's consensus, there's no dispute, so in that case: undisputed. "Consensus" is a standard procedure for wikipedia, see wikipedia:consensus. That's why I never had seen the use of the word "undisputed" as problematic in that sentence. If "undisputed" is taken in the sense of "nobody will ever cast a doubt on it", I understand the problem you might have with it, while in that sense there's not very much that's undisputed forever. --Francis Schonken 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning WP:CIVIL when your comments all seem to violate it. But that's a side issue. Aside from "warning" me, I don't suppose you'd be willing to let us know any actual criteria by which anyone might decide whether to include or exclude a name from this category? Of course none of the listed names reach "consensus", unless we decide in advance who gets to be counted. Not a lot of Al Quaeda members, for example, would call bin Laden a "terrorist", though I'm guessing you want his name included in the category. Every answer you give simply repeats: A name is there because FS says it should be there... which really just isn't good guidance for other editors (not is it NPOV). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria are in the present category definition:

This category is for individuals that have personally used and/or verifiably were about to put in practice terrorist tactics, here understood as inducing, or convincingly threatening to induce, outside the operations of a regular armed conflict, a life-threatening situation in a community, with the objective of exploiting, for purposes that are broader than personal gain, the possible weakness of a community that experiences collective terror.

That's the first paragraph of the present category definition.
Presently there is consensus (as in wikipedia:consensus) about several people to be included in that category (or its subcategories), compliant to these criteria, and, I assume, with the included articles also compliant to wikipedia:verifiability and wikipedia:categorisation of people.
Maybe the last paragraph of the present category definition (that is: the paragraph that speaks about verifiability) has become "redundant", it was written at a time that the verifiability guideline (wikipedia:verifiability) was still in its early stages. Since then application of verifiability to all articles has gotten more attention, and is, I suppose, well established. So, as far as I'm concerned that last paragraph (which also appears to have caused some confusion) can be left out, together with the equally redundant sentence about "opponents of political groups and individuals".
Do you still see other problems? --Francis Schonken 08:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Proceeding with the proposed changes. --Francis Schonken 07:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Another discussion or idea

Perhaps another approach is needed, perhaps something such as a concrete example. What about the members of the Front de libération du Québec, such as Raymond Villeneuve? Would he qualify to be added into this category? Maybe this would help resolve the outstanding issues above? --HappyCamper 03:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi HappyCamper,
  1. Again: Whether or not you agree, do you understand the point I try to make?
  2. Several Front de libération du Québec people are in subcategories of the terrorist category. Is there a problem with any of these categorisations? Re. Villeneuve: see "in need of attention" notice I put on Raymond Villeneuve, and explanation of the points for which attention is required, at Talk:Raymond Villeneuve.
--Francis Schonken 08:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus != Francis Schonken all by himself

Please refrain from "declaring consensus" based on a personal opinion held by exactly one editor. An editor who has failed to even mention a single germane argument in the torrent of words, too, FWIW. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see the addition you propose as an improvement. I explained why and read your comments. Finally above I made a consensus proposal. Instead of saying what you think about that, you reply with more insults. Sorry, I don't take insults into account as valid arguments. So, sorry, the consensus proposal formulated above is unchallenged, as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, consensus is roughly defined as 75-80% support. Yes, "Wikipedia is not a democracy", so that's not an exact criterion. At this point we have LotLE firmly opposed to Francis Schonken's change, and FS obviously supporting it.

For clarity, I oppose to your change diff.
Further you appear not to understand wikipedia:consensus. Nor, for that matter, wikipedia:conflict resolution. Nor, as you amply demonstrated above, WP:CIVIL, nor wikipedia:categorisation of people, nor wikipedia:categories, lists, and series boxes, nor so many other essential tools for building this encyclopedia.
Where did we agree on the specifics of the voting procedure you started? Nowhere, and that makes it pretty useless as a step in a conflict resolution attempt.
As far as I understand, we're still in the pre-conflict resolution stage as described in wikipedia:conflict resolution, that is the stage were it is advised to follow wikipedia:policies and guidelines. Every time I bring up one of these, you reply either that you don't understand what it is about, or that it "has no importance" (as you did about WP:CIVIL) - maybe it would be better to stop the charade, and you simply admit you are clueless about what makes wikipedia tick.
So, no, I'm not planning to let myself be influenced by someone who doesn't understand, when I see a chance to improve wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If Francis Schonken can locate the names of two other WP editors in good standing who support his change, that would be 75% support (assuming no one else votes to keep the existing language). If he can come up with three such editors, that would be 80% support. So far, FS has demonstrated support from zero other editors. IOW, not consensus.

And yes, somewhere in the hundreds of repetitions by FS of "I'm right because I say so", I probably failed to explicitly indicate that I still disagreed with the very latest repetition of the same non-defined, unargued category "criteria". So let me state it now unambiguously: I, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, am now and for all time forward, firmly opposed to insinuating in this category that some so-called terrorist describe themselves as such. No number of repetitions of the false claim, by FS or anyone else, will lead me to believe it is true. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick opportunity to show consensus

Wish for the phrase, The term terrorist is not used by any group to describe itself, but is frequently used by opponents of political groups and individuals to describe them, or something else describing the same general concept to appear in the category page:

Support

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Oppose

Insertion of the word "other"

I inserted the word "other" into the disputed sentence. --HappyCamper 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't make the sentence less "redundant" in a category definition. Above you asked me what I meant by "redundant" in this context. I obliged and explained, based on wikipedia:policies and guidelines. So, I see no reason to keep the redundant sentence in the category definition, and will remove it.
As for Lulu's continuation of insults, I think you as a sysop are better placed than I am to do something about that. --Francis Schonken 07:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Another solution

It has been a number of weeks now since another contributor has commented on anything here, so it seems that only two editors are involved at the moment. How about this? Let's give everyone a chance to break from this article.

I'll protect both the category and the talk page for say, 5 days. At the same time, I'm also going to archive the discussion on this talk page. That way, after the 5 days, everyone will have a blank talk page to work with, and symbolically it will be a clean start. This hasn't been tried before, so would you two be willing to give this a chance? --HappyCamper 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good... protect, archive, I'll chill and relax. Thanks muchly, HappyCamper. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Category_talk%7ETerrorists_Archive_1_12b0.html"