Wikinews

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/terrorist

< Wikinews:Water cooler | policy

I agree with this. There is no place for the use of these terms outside of direct quotes in a NPOV format,imo. (Previous unsigned comment by Neutralizer)

Poll suggestion; These words are not to be allowed within wikinews articles outside of direct quotes; just like "nazis" is not allowed.

previous discussions on this: Talk:17 Civilians killed by U.S. bombing attack Talk:Pakistani_Official_claims_'foreign_terrorists'_among_civilians_killed_in_U.S._airstrike#Terrorists.3F. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that we should use all words? Including "towelhead", "nigger", "cheese-eating-surrender-monkey" etc. etc. .... PVJ(Talk) 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please, don't fool me. I am speaking of correct, intelligent language not slang. Jacques Divol 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned words are just as racist and offensive as the word "terrorist". I, for one, do not see the difference between an "intelligent" slur and a "dumb" one. PVJ
The difference is that the word "terrorist" is not a slur, it is a word used to describe a group of people who use terrorist(read: underhanded, dirty, non-conventional) tactics to an attempt to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the public, whether there are casulties or not. I oppose the banning of this word, as Al Qaeda, no matter how you slice it, is a Terrorist group as they use terrorist tactics. They certainly are not "freedom fighters".ThePacMan

(Talk) 15:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's seem you have a long list of word you want to stop usage. Please give us this list in one shot not one a one. I understand your meaning very well. But i don't want, for example, remove my picture onmy page just because it hurts sensibility of many people. Even if i understang why some use blind bombing, and that some could think it's a regular way to do war. i do not agree.
it's maybe a bias, but i can't call baby's killer a soldier, sorry. it's terrorism.
Jacques Divol 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys who rape and murder 14 year old girls or make Muslims form "naked pyramids" can be called soldiers, but the people fighting against these barbarians are terrorists? You talk of babies dying in attacks such as 11/9, but why do you neglect the little Lebanese boy who was incinerated by an Israeli missile even before he could finish his last sandwich? Going by your definition, the American soldiers and the Zionist regime are just as "terrorist" as Al-Qaeda or Jaish-e-Mohammed. However, if I went about calling U.S troops or Israelis "terrorists", would you stand by idly and let me continue? No. And therein lies the essence of systemic bias. As for removing your picture from your Userpage, I would not do that, but if you put (say) cartoons of the Prophet anywhere on Wikinews, yes I would remove those images because they are racist in nature and are offensive to millions of Muslims around the world. PVJ(Talk) 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you to some extent. I'm just opposed to voting yes or no on it (meta:Voting is evil). I personally think we should not use the word terrorist if we can't define it. If you/anyone can give me a definition of the word, I'm fine with its use. otherwise lets not. (Is this good?wikt:terrorist wikt:terrorism, w:Definition of terrorism) Bawolff ☺☻ 07:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but as for defining "terrorist" please keep this (taken from the Wiktionary definition) in mind, even when dealing with sensitive events like 11/9 The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective, since one person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter, and vice versa. PVJ(Talk) 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
here's what the pros have to say -
Doldrums 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.
We should not adopt other people's language as our own. [...] We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent, and "militant". Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

– BBC Editorial Guidelines

Reminds me a bit of wikipedia NPOV introduction. I agree with that. Also it appears the anti-vandal RC bot has an opinion.
Quote
Quote
{{{1}}}

Bawolff ☺☻ 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC definition seems fine. The Malegaon bombings are a striking example of how the this word is misused- when Kashmiri "freedom fighters" from the Lashkar bomb trains, they are quickly branded "terrorists", but the same title is rarely applied to Hindu fundamentalist groups (one of the suspects in this case) when they plant explosives near mosques or when they instigate anti-Muslim riots. This is despite the fact that both organisations share common enemies- India and her citizens (Hindu as well as Muslim). I think VandalBot might have a point regarding the Colobia story, I am not familiar with the background of the conflict in that country. PVJ(Talk) 10:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny what vandal-bot says. Every single edit by neutralizer is giberish acording to vandal-bot (mostly because he's black listed because of his block record, but its funny none the less) (No offense intended towards neut). I like the BBC idea. The other Colobia story to me terrorism shouldn't be in quotes, because it was a (semi)drill of what the government calls a terrorist attack Bawolff ☺☻ 10:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a template to clarify this in articles. PVJ(Talk) 13:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know if your template is usefull. We are trying to do our best to be neutral and we understand that we are limited by our culture and more or less wash-brained since our childhood by media. I don't know if it's usefull to overload our article with this kind of message. We already have npov message. it's enought. Jacques Divol 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly have worded the template like that, but if we must have it, it should go on the talk page. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the use of putting it on the talk-page? You can reject the template if you wish, but then we'd have to go back to the lenghthy wording disputes again, if that's what you prefer. Also, what part of the wording do you have a problem with? PVJ(Talk) 08:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sure if a template message or a content guideline is the answer to this issue. either way, i would suggest the following wording. it avoids the awkwardness of the "wikinews view" (wikinews article are supposed to reflect wikinews view - WN:NPOV) and the legal conviction thing - acts that might be defined as terrorism in the legal systems of some countries may not be uncontrovertially terrorism (eg. expression of support for a "terrorist" group or cause).

This article deals with Terrorism. The designation of an individual or a group as a "Terrorist" is often controvertial and implies a POV. Therefore, the use of the term should be carefully weighed, and the use of attribution or the use of alternative terms such as "bomber"/"gunman"/"kidnapper", "attacker", "insurgent, and "militant" should be considered.

Doldrums 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a [[Category:Terrorism]] on this website. Now, it no longer exists. Satisfied? hope so, -Edbrown05 09:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing this is about is news. -Edbrown05 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My template was made in accordance with the Wiktionary defnition of terrorism. It is important to mention that ones country's terrorist may be another's freedom-fighter. As long as this fact is included in the template, the wording may be altered. PVJ(Talk) 10:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

problems with the template's wording:

  1. all terrorists are not necessarily "freedom fighters". eg. terrorists who subscribe to a authoritarian ideology.
  2. something as complex as terrorism needs to be linked to the Wikipedia article rather than a wiktionary definition
  3. template presupposes that the terrorists mentioned in the article have not been convicted yet, and can't be used on articles which talk about convicted terrorists.
  4. wikinews should not disclaim the views expressed in its articles, as the template does. it should stick to, and stand by, its view - NPOV.

problems with the template's usage:

  1. i don't see any reason why the template should be used as a kind of "disclaimer" on published articles - similar caveats are arguably needed on articles dealing with a number of topics (eg., all articles dealing with criminals can use the "innocent until guilty" bit, lots of articles, if not all, can use a "this article may suffer from systematic anglo-US bias" disclaimer). we don't use any of them and i don't see a compelling reason to make an exception here.
  2. templates are used to call attention to particular and frequently occuring defects in developing articles, and to inform editors of what to do to avoid/overcome the defect. in its present wording, the template does not do the latter, and if its usage on the Arar article is any indicator, does not do the former either - the tag was added but no correctable defect was identified in the article).

Doldrums 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Disclaimers should be used sparingly; mainly to protect us from liability. This template makes it appear as if we can't figure out the right words to use and don't stand behind our own articles. Intelligent readers (which I hope we have) don't have to be reminded of the ambiguity of certain words. And I believe they know that presumption of innocence is an integral part of every society that strives to follow the rule of law. --+Deprifry+ 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1)I do not recollect asking for anyone's permission to use this template. 2)Even if I did, Meta clearly states that numerical strength (in a poll) should not be allowed to trump neutrality. 3)I will continue to use this template where needed. As regards the article about an innocent man being tortured by Canada, changing the title to Innocent Canadian man released after being tortured for a year would be NPOV. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you make a Poll without counting and using numerical ? A poll was asked, and a majory seems clear. Now you reject the Poll stating meta... no more comment. Jacques Divol 12:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light-touch support of original proposal All language disclaimers, like Template:Terrorism, are stupid. We ain't writing for children. And wikinews ain't paper! 'Any' "iffy" terms ought to be links to wikipedia articles whose intros make it clear that the term is "iffy". Its also clear that one ought to use the word terrorism when appropriate.
However, I fully support the general idea that terrorism is a non-objective word & ought to be avoided". Just try to say exactly what people actualy did. For example, if an American checkpoint gets blown up in Iraq, don't use the word "terrorist", use the word "attacker", "bomber", or "shooter". Here "attacker" etc are much more specific & passes no moral judgement. Infact, I imagine extremely few situation where wikinews should ever refer to individual people as terrorists, more specific & neutral words almost always exist.
Its a bit more complex when you discuss terrorist organisations, the Muslim brotherhood, etc. "Islamist" is objective & maybe sufficent. I'm not sure its very easy to quantify the level of violence supported by a specific group, but the linked wikipedia article ough to make this clear. Nyarlathotep 08:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the United Nations have a definition? If the UN would call the 9/11 attacks 'terrorism', so should we. If they do not, neither should we. This seems to me like an excellent opportunity to use the UN for guidelines. --Daniel575 19:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a value judgement which provides no additional information, you should say what they did, i.e. bomber, attacker, etc., say if the victims were civilian or millitary, and mention the attackers ideology, i.e. Islamist, Basque seperatist, etc.
Take a look at the first line of Two Pakistani militants arrested in south Indian city of Mysore :
Two members of the Islamic militant group Al-Badr have been arrested in Mysore after a gun-battle with police early Friday morning.
It says they are Islamic millitants, links their specific terrorist group's article, states the city, and says that they fought the police with guns.. and says the day. All that is missing is that they wanted to attack the civilian government, which is clarified by the second sentence :
Police said that they were planning a "devastating" terrorist attack in the state by attacking Vidhan Soudha in Bangalore, which houses the state secretariat and legislative assembly.
Which you'll notice uses terrorist as a quotation. Clearly nothing would be gained here by trying to wedge the word terrorist into the first sentence. Had they done it, we be saying something like:
Two members of the Islamic militant group Al-Badr have blown up the Vidhan Soudha in Bangalore killing 10 civilians.
Even here making the value judgement actually detracts from the information content. Nyarlathotep 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/terrorist&oldid=4765783"