Template talk:Infobox militant organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Requested move
I wonder if this infobox could be renamed? We have a specific guideline (WP:TERRORIST) against using the word 'terrorist' to describe organizations (except as the sourced opinion of others). While the title is not visible to users, using this infobox looks like a POV statement to other editors of the article. See, for example, the low-level edit warring at ETA switching between this and Template:Infobox War Faction, which is not a good fit for the organization. I suggest Template:Infobox militant organization. Any objections? TSP 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Cool. (Thanks - I was just going to check that you had noticed this proposal, as the creator). As the template has no other substantive edits, I'll go ahead and move it in the next day or so if we get no more comments. I'm happy to sort out the links from the pages that use it. TSP 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crimes
A user was complaining that the description "Crimes" was POV, and he does kinda have a point since it's not wikipedia's duty to decide what's crime and what's not. Can we also reword that? I don't really have anything in mind though... Something more neutral like "acts" would do it. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its ok! I found another variant: attacks. Anyways, we can put also "actions" and also no problem to save the crimes for some special cases. Thanks, Andranikpasha (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well I think Wikipedia is not a juristic organ to judge what is a crime and what is not, so I think the "crime section" in general rather than a specific case, and can be replaced with something else. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but anyways we had some specific events when a crime is obvious. For example a military organization which operates like a gang group with some financial etc criminal purposes (mafia fightings, trafficing), or make of ethnic cleasnings, massacres of a large number of peaceful inhabitants, internationally recognized crimes against humanity. For other cases I prefer to add one more term - "actions", so maybe its better to not replace but add another one term. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- See I disagree with that. Because "obvious" is a subjective term. You gave here your definition of "obvious", however to me for example killing somebody (anybody) is "obvious" enough to be considered as a crime. However wikipedia should be an objective place, as opposed to subjective, hence imho we should reword it. Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kerem, Im agree with you in theory, but anyways we cant call for example a killing of 10000 inhabitants of a town or village an "activity" or even an "attack". There're events classified by the international organizations, nations or courts as crimes. An example, the killings of pupils in Beslan school. Or the destroying of Budha monument by Al-Qaeda: I dont know if even the supporters (if they exist) can call these events "an activity" or "a (political) act". We can call these tragedies crimes until no any user is opposing us. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're still giving subjective examples. That's your idea that nobody will oppose them. "until no any user is oppossing" can not be a defining term. If we go back to our case of ASALA, I can not understand how one can call killing diplomats an act, but you do. (Although this does indeed qualify as a crime against humanity. check the article 7/a, and civilian. This was just an example. If you want to talk specifically about this one we can do it on the talk page.) This problem will always occur unless we find a rocksolid definition for "crime" or simply rename it. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Fine by me. Kerem Özcan (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for the change. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
