Category talk:Terrorists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

* Archive 1

For a list of previous deletion debates see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists

Contents 1 Distinguishing state terrorism 2 Recent archival 3 Another solution 4 Proposed rewrite 4.1 Proposed text 5 Page protection 6 Membership in a known terrorist group 7 Delete 8 CfD no consensus and relinking the history of the discussions 9 WP:CFD 10 Systematic bias 10.1 2007 continuation of discussion 11 October/November 2006 deletion discussions 12 Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective 13 Are assassins terrorists? 14 RfC invitation 15 Who doesn't belong? 16 Aili Jõgi 17 Allegation vs. conviction? 18 Avoid self-reference in terrorist definition

[edit] Distinguishing state terrorism

I've added "Non-state actor" back as a qualifier to distinguish state terrorism--this was part of the November 2005 consensus writeup below. User: Nat Krause removed it a while back, claiming POV; this is a misunderstanding. The category specification is not intended to claim that states do not perpetrate acts of terrorism, merely that these acts belong on their own list. I tried to make that explicit on the category page and included a number of links to the preferred category. Please let me know what you think--I know the subject inspires a great deal of emotion, but I believe we can best accomodate the span of views through informative text rather than changing categorizations.---Knoepfle 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent archival

Please see the note below for the rationale behind the archival and the page protection. --HappyCamper 03:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

<edit conflict>Hmm...I'll be bold and protected it anyway. The idea is for everyone to relax and break from this article for the next 5 days. We can reinvigorate the discussion again afterwards. I will notify both of you when I unprotect these pages, so you don't have to continually worry about monitoring this page. In the meantime, please feel free to post on my talk page if something else comes up.

Here, I think we can all use these lovely tulips too. Ah! Smell the unique fragrance of spring!! --HappyCamper 03:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewrite

I unprotected this talk page because I just happened to come by today and I have something to add, and of course it's not fair if only admins can post. (It's actually rather unusual to protect talk pages, but I hope I'm not unduly interrupting anyone's wikibreak by posting here...)

I find the current description to be overly formal and somewhat wordy (something I am often guilty of myself), and as I previously mentioned, missing a few helpful links to related articles. Please discuss the following replacement. (Though feel free to take a few days to think about it before responding.) I have tried to make this definition more consistent with terrorism, which has already been successfully hashed out among a number of editors. -- Beland 05:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and might I recommend the use of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and/or Wikipedia:Third opinion to help resolve any future impasses? I will try not to neglect this page quite so much, though I often let controversial questions stew for a while before responding. -- Beland 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed text

This category (and subcategories) is for individuals only. For organizations, see Category:Terrorism and List of terrorist organizations.

There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following most commonly included elements:

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
• Targeting civilians.
• Non-state actor. (See state terrorism instead.)
• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required; see terrorism for a list of alternative terms, with both positive and negative connotations.

See also: List of terrorists

{{SCD}}

I'm happy with the proposed text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Tx, Beland, seems like the update that was needed - I move it to the category page. --Francis Schonken 09:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay! -- Beland 07:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Hi Beland! Well, I agree it is quite unusual to protect talk pages, but it was done so that the active editors could have a bit of breathing space. Now that the page is unprotected, let's leave it that way. At least we can say that we had a blissful 2 days of relaxing. --HappyCamper 02:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the suggested five-day protection period for the cat page is over I have unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony :-) --HappyCamper 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Membership in a known terrorist group

Is merely being a member of a known terrorist group a ground for belonging to this group? Shawnc 12:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, unless they were convicted for it. Mirror Vax 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What you mean by "convicted for it", convicted for being a member of organisation designated as "terrorist" or convicted for committing terrorist acts? If the latter, then it seems quite a few people need to be removed and maybe some even added. --Magabund 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

See Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. Per Wikipedia policy, we were supposed to avoid use of the word terrorist without qualifiers such as "considered by [party] to be..." The existence of this article basically creates a list of individuals considered by Wikipedia to be terrorists, which clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia policy concerning the word. This article should be deleted. Aiden 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Words to avoid is a guideline not policy. There is a difference. --Syrthiss 13:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this category. As it says on the "Terrorism" page, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's inherently not NPOV. 24.59.110.228 08:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD no consensus and relinking the history of the discussions

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 January 28. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found on this log page.

Archive of discussion votes on cfd (updated with this one): Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists

[edit] WP:CFD

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2006 September 23. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Systematic bias

I notice that a wide range of Arabs are included here, but Baruch Goldstein (responsible for the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, listed as a "Terrorist incident") and Yitzhak Shamir (involved in the assassination of the civilian Folke Bernadotte) are not, and so on.

Clearly we should apply WP:WTA fairly. The CFD failure notwithstanding, I propose simply removing all entries from this category one by one, citing WP:WTA for each one. —Ashley Y 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are proposing to override an official procedure on the basis of a mere guideline. In my opinion the appropriate response to such deliberate disruption would be to block your account. Piccadilly 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, he would be proposing to look at each article individually in line with WP:WTA and WP:NPOV - which is what really is in question here. The CFD's just look at the category itself rather than the article. If the CFD fails, I would do this anyway as the articles themselves would have to contain evidence that the person self defines as a terrorist (so far I have found 1 person who self defines as a terrorist). Trying to keep wikipedia neutral is not disruption - threatening to block for enacting out policies is.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 continuation of discussion

The two potential Israeli terrorists are actually not terrorists and I'll explain why, Baruch Goldstein went on a hate filled rampage and Yitzhak Shamir was doing what he did in the name of the Israeli state. If Yasser Arafat were on this list I'd say Shamir should be included. Anynobody 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October/November 2006 deletion discussions

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2006 October 31. The result of the discussion was delete.

This decision was then overturned at deletion review [1] and sent back to CFD.

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2006 November 15. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

For a (hopefully complete) list of previous deletion debates see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists. the wub "?!" 12:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective

SAR23 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are assassins terrorists?

As Talk:Thenmuli Rajaratnam#Was Thenmuli a terrorist? shows, there exists considerable overlap between the terms. Are all assasins automatically terrorists, or do we draw a line? Where? — Sebastian 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC invitation

I invite everyone interested to take part in an RfC regarding the appropriate use of this category for two specific articles, Michael O'Dwyer and Reginald Dyer. My hope is that it will also help to set the more definite guidelines for the category in general. -- int19h 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2007 April 6. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Who doesn't belong?

I noticed this tag on the category page:

The inclusion of certain people in this category is disputed. Please see the relevant discussions on the talk pages of those individual articles. Consider rewording the inclusion criteria of this category if they are unclear. See also the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people.

This template should only be used on category pages.

Who are the disputed people in this list? Lets discuss any disputes so that the tag can be removed. Anynobody 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who added the tag. The two disputed persons are Reginald Dyer and Michael O'Dwyer. There are open RfCs to remove Category:Terrorists from the articles on them: for Reginald Dyer, for Michael O'Dwyer - I invite everyone to aid in resolving this issue there. -- int19h 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aili Jõgi

I started provoked an edit war at Aili Jõgi. In todays Britain or the U.S. this person would no doubt be considered a terrorist. Our Estonian friends want to categorize her only as a victim of Soviet repressions. -- Petri Krohn 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In todays Britain or the U.S. Georg Elser would be also considered terrorist. Petri Krohn's opinion that 1946 Stalin's USSR is somehow comparable to modern day UK or USA is probably main reason why he somehow manages to get into conflicts with Estonian editors. Aili Jõgi was 14 year old girl who blew up Soviet monument for "liberation" of Tallinn at 1946, then Stalin's repressions were in full strenght and also active resistance existed.--Staberinde 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never compared Stalin's USSR to modern day UK or USA, nor implied a similarity. I also agree with you on Georg Elser. The point I want to make is, that we must have some category that can include both Aili Jõgi and Palestinian suicide bombers (some of them girls not much older than 14). If it is not possible to inlude a biography of living person in category:Terrorists, then the category must be renamed to something less derogatory. -- Petri Krohn 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have great respect for all of these people; if I added the Category:Terrorists, it certainly was not meant to be derogatory. -- Petri Krohn 13:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this category is in any way applicable to the article on her, since she did not target civilians, or, indeed, any people at all. Blowing up a monument is, at best, vandalism, but certainly not terrorism. -- int19h 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think the act itself would be considered terrorism, and that she there by could be called a "terrorist", without it beeing POV. It is not about what is right or wrong, it is what it is. Bronks 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One alternative could be to use Category:Terrorism in Estonia. Bronks 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As several editors have pointed out, she did not target any civilians or any people at all. Category category:Estonian anti-communists is accurate, that if she was "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" should be decided by reader. Category:Terrorism in Estonia is seems to be quite pointless as it currently includes 0 articles. Adding one disputable case would not make it much better.--Staberinde 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The classical definition of 'terrorist' involves, well, creating terror. Explosives may be used a tool, but it's not explosives as such that make the terrorist; it's the way they get used. In case of Miss Jõgi, it needs to be pointed out that her deed happened in the night, without anybody who would potentially become terrorised of the explosion, or possibly injured by it, in proximity, and that was intentional. Her intent was to remove the monument, not to cause terror in seeking of political gains. Thus she does not satisfy the definition of terrorist. Finally, the Russian categorisation of people like her of the time was 'bandits'. Digwuren 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidently her intention was not to only to destroy the monument but also to cause terror. A direct quote: "It was wooden. We could have just doused it with gasoline and set fire to it, but we wanted it to go with a bang". -- Petri Krohn 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're reading a lot into the question of why they wanted it to go with a bang.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Contrary to Petri Krohn's assertion above, the quotation is not "direct"; it is a translation. Reading of the original reveals an intent to ritualise the demolition, 'bang' being an important symbol in the post-war culture, not an intent to scare people, which is a necessary component of terrorist behaviour. Digwuren 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason they did it in the dark night was not to make sure that nobody "would potentially become terrorised of the explosion", but becouse no one shoulde see them. (Of curse!) Also, it was not just to "remove the monument", it was indeed for "seeking of political gains": they wanted to show the Russians that they were not welcomed. The act is still an act of terrorism, it shows that they have weapons: bombs, and are using them against the Soviets. Bronks

Still, no non-combatants were targeted, no people at all were targeted. People for some reason like to label everything they do not like as terrorists these days. It was more like vandalism with some political motivation. Some parallels with terrorism can be drawn but those are clearly too weak for "category:terrorist".--Staberinde 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By espionage history standards, her deed could also be classified as sabotage. Digwuren 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegation vs. conviction?

There are a lot of people in this group "alleged to" have been terrorists. I'm guessing the whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to wikipedia? - TheMightyQuill 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid self-reference in terrorist definition

A search [2] currently shows 35 categories containing:

(see Category:Terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" used for wikipedia categorization)

Per Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, the reference to Wikipedia should be removed. I have not been involved in the terrorist definition discussion but suggest to simply remove the word "wikipedia" so it becomes:

(see Category:Terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" used for categorization)

PrimeHunter (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{Terrorist definition}} and added it [3] to the 35 categories that were in the search. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I moved that category to {{Terrorist category definition}}, indicating that we're working in the framework of category definitions (per Wikipedia:Categorisation of people, not in the sense of a dictionary definition);
2. I moved the content of the category definition of this "parent" category to the template (with minor updates to that text, mainly leaving out a link to an apparently non-existing category on state terrorism), and then used the same template here on the parent category. This ensures we use the same definition everywhere, and is even better in the WP:ASR sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)