Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:36, 13 November 2006

< November 7	November 9 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

8 November 2006

Category:Terrorists

Apologies for not using the template -- I couldn't get it to work with a category link! If someone smarter than I can fix it, that would be nice :-)

User:Kbdank71 closed the CfD for Category:Terrorists as delete. On the CfD were 11 keep votes, 4 deletes (including nom), and several comments. In addition, the category survived several other prior nominations (Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Terrorists). I propose the deletion be overturned, as the overwhelming consensus was keep. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. "No consensus" would have been a reasonable outcome too, but there's certainly no clear basis for finding that there was a consensus to delete. Postdlf 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as above. There was clearly no consensus to delete. Prolog 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query So this category will be including Nobel Peace Prize laureates Nelson Mandela[1][2],Menachem Begin[3][4], and Yasser Arafat[5][6]? At the moment, they're not categorized as such Bwithh 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nor Mandela, nor Begin, nor Arafat would be categorised in this category in a foreseeable future, per Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation and Wikipedia:Categorisation of people. In fact Menachem Begin is used as an example in Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation, and it is explained there why he would normally not be categorised in a "terrorists" (sub)category. --Francis Schonken 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The tutorial text you point out reads:So, as an example, there is no doubt a "significant minority" would consider Menachem Begin a state terrorist - while, however one turns it, this is not one of the 4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person, a "state terrorists" category will not be found at the bottom of the article of this person. This line is misleading and possibly politically POV (in a Wikipedia tutorial!). The "significant minority" using the "terrorist" term in connection with Begin includes mainstream media channels such as the BBC and the US Government. And the usage doesn't describe Begin as a "state terrorist" but as a leader of a "terrorist"/"freedom fighter group which used terrorist tactics" in the struggle to create an independent state of Israel i.e. by definition, non-state terrorism. Okay there may be a "significant minority" (are there surveys on this?) which label Begin as a state terrorist for whatever controversial military actions he ordered when Prime Minister (and this makes more sense then for the tutorial note), but this is not related to the BBC/US govt. description of his actions as an insurgency leader. And in any case, when on earth are categories restricted to the "4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person"? The general practice on Wikipedia is more like to load up as many pertinent categories as possible. (and certainly his experience as an insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter is not a marginal or minor part of Begin's life history). I'm going to take a look at changing this part of the tutorial. Bwithh 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, the Begin example in the NPOV tutorial only discusses whether or not he should be categorised as "state terrorist". That doesn't make that example "misleading" nor "POV". It only discusses Begin in relation to a "state terrorist" category. Nothing less, nothing more.
      Further, I'm convinced that for listing Begin in any "other" terrorist (sub)category the reasoning would be more or less the same (although there may be differences). If Begin was the leader of Irgun,[7] and Irgun is significant enough as organisation to have a separate category, then apply Category:Irgun (or a subcategory of that category) to the Begin article. Whether the Irgun category is a (sub-)sub-category of (e.g.) Category:Terrorist organizations, or whatever, only rests upon the referenced content of the Irgun article, not upon the content of the Begin article.
      Further, if there's no doubt that Begin was a terrorist, and if that "being a terrorist" is one of his key characteristics (well, I don't see that superseding his key characteristics as a political leader, as an orator, a peace negotiator, etc..) then he should be categorised a terrorist. What I mean by that is that we should not trash the "terrorists" category because the political climate might disfavour to categorise someone who is by all standards a terrorist (I always take Andreas Baader as a prototypical example of a terrorist) as what (s)he is: a terrorist. Wikipedia is about knowledge. Knowledge doesn't always pass through the filters of "political correctness". If you thought that in Wikipedia knowledge is servant to "political correctness", I suppose there are still a few details you're missing. --Francis Schonken 12:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're missing something rather more than a detail: no-one is a terrorist by all standards, and settling on a particular standard, which is what you're advocating, even in the (IMO very unlikely) event that it can be applied in an objectively NPOV manner, itself fails to be NPOV. Dismissing different POVs on the grounds of their "political correctness" is a pretty good indication of that. Alai 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It is worth noting that this has been discussed a few times before, but not previously deleted. Wikipedia:Words to avoid appears to have been elevated to a guideline that is a part of the Manual of Style since the last discussion. But it is a guideline, not an overiding policy, and it says about this word in relevant part "There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below." That is only a caution, not even a statement that the word should usually be avoided. This was the only policy or guideline page referenced by the three delete opiners. The closing admin makes no reference to policy either. So I can't come up with a reason to endorse the close. (And parenthetically, as to Bwithh's examples, cases like those three are why I find the Nobel Peace Prize utterly meaningless. At least two of those three do belong in these categories, I don't know about the third.) GRBerry 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you mean Nelson Mandela as the third, the US govt only provisionally took him off its global terrorist watch list in 2003 (decision to be reviewed in 10 years). (as for the Peace Prize itself, I don't think its utterly meaningless, though I do think of it as an often clumsily used tool of political symbolism that's inherently controversial. I know people in third world development circles who consider this year's award to Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank a travesty. My original point was that this category must be properly inclusive. I'm sympathetic to the original CfD nominator's call for a more indirect title, as I think this is a better way of negotiating some inclusion controversies for e.g. certain "freedom fighters"/"terrorists" that have since become respected world leaders Bwithh 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - There is no way this can be used in a NPOV way, and this it is appropriate to delete as per policy. --Improv 14:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is no consensus that it is necessarily POV. Postdlf 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note that Wikipedia:Categorisation of people is the guideline that discusses the implementation of NPOV for people categories. The terrorists category (with its present category definition) is perfectly OK with that guideline. --Francis Schonken 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After some reflection, would it be better in line with the recommendation to keep the overall category "terrorists" while creating some sub-categories that reflect current and past terrorist recognitions. My view would be to categorize, say, Nelson Mandela under: South Africans recognized as terrorists, Terrorists formerly recognized by the United States. Timothy McVeigh would be under: Terrorists recognized by the United States, Americans recognized as terrorists. This would allow us to show what entity defines another entity as a terrorist, as well as show entities that were once considered terrorists, etc. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 16:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment I created a proposed hierarchy at User:Irixman/TerrorismProposal. I may be bold and implement it, but I would like some comments on it, and if other editors think it would be practical and beneficial. I posted it at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies.
- Wouldn't that end up with people like Osama bin Laden categorized by hundreds of "Terrorists recognized by X" categories? That doesn't seem like a very good solution. Postdlf 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the criticism :) I changed the proposal some to remove that eventuality. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — the current category definition has been widely discussed, has received consensus, and makes the category operational in accordance with the wikipedia:categorisation of people guideline and the "Categorisation" section of the NPOV tutorial. The "delete" close of the CfD was not justified by the discussions on that page, that were nearer to a consensus to keep than to a no consensus. And even in the case of no consensus the category should've been kept. Same for all the subcategories proposed in the same vote. --Francis Schonken 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redelete. I don't see consensus, so the CfD should not have been closed that way. On the other hand, the category is inherently POV and useless, and should be deleted eventually.--Stephan Schulz 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's got to be some better way to do this. Note, for instance, that everyone currently targeting American forces in Afghanistan or Iraq is labeled as a terrorist whereas people from, say, the National Liberation Front (Algeria) are not. What exactly is the rationale for having Kamran Atif labeled as a terrorist but not Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray. If countless news organization chose to be very careful in their use of this politically charged term, why shouldn't we? 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No one should be labelled a terrorist just for targeting the U.S. military, just for intentionally targeting civilians, so remove them from the category if it's not applied correctly. I don't know of any usage of the term that would include such assassinations as you mentioned. Terrorists don't target civilians because their goal is to kill those particular civilians; the civilian deaths are just the means by which they attempt to get a government to act a certain way. Kennedy and King, like all political assassinations, were ends in themselves. Postdlf 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact is that they are categorized as terrorists. In fact, every islamic militant is categorized as a terrorist, regardless of whether or not we have concrete evidence linking these individuals to civilian targets. And even with the definition that a terrorist is someone who kills civilians to get a government to act a certain way, then do you start considering the bombing of Dresden as a terrorist act? Is the Ku Klux Klan a terrorist organization? Are the Contras a terrorist organization? I am saddened to see that the Wikipedia community, which is usually so careful about maintaining NPOV, can so easily refuse to accept that the term "terrorist" is inherently political. Even if we do decide to have a very very precise definition and even assuming that we could somehow miraculously maintain the category to include only those individuals which verifiably meet those criteria, we know that most readers (and I would include myself here) have some different definition in mind. Pascal.Tesson 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "terrorist" wasn't in common usage during WWII, or when the KKK was a bunch of lynch-mob murderers as opposed to just racist assholes in suits, so we wouldn't retroactively apply it to those prior periods in time any more than we would categorize people from Ancient Rome as terrorists. I'd consider another term, if there was one that meant and only meant "non-state actor whose m.o. is to intentionally target violence at civilians to influence government policy/action." I had thought "militant" might be it, but apparently not all "militants" target civilians. So that's out. "Terrorism" is an emotionally-laden term because violence intentionally targeting civilians is a widely condemned act. Just like murder. "Murder" may be used as a politically charged term too, but we don't avoid the designation, we just make sure those included fit the profile. Just like we should with Category:Terrorists. Once again, remove anyone who has not actually targeted civilians. Postdlf 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, and make mine a postal vote for delete. If the categorisation guidelines can be construed as meaning that one can turn a POV term into an NPOV term just by making the definition precise in an arbitrary manner, which is at least borderline OR, then rewrite them to mandate (well, in a guidelineish sorts of way) avoidance of inherently POV categories entirely. Alai 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The term "terrorist" is emotionally laden and tends to be POV, and as such is not a good categorization. >Radiant< 12:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - This is a clear case where the majority got it wrong. The term terrorist is inherently POV, as one nation's terrorist is another's savior. If we were to include anyone who was at one time described as a terrorist, pretty much anyone could be included, from Osama Bin Laden to George W. Bush to The KLF. The term "terrorist" is ill defined, making the category equally as ill defined. Wickethewok 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for inclusion is not "anyone who has been called a terrorist." George W. Bush is not a terrorist because he is not a non-state actor who intentionally targets civilians with violence to influence a government's policy. It's certainly arguable that Bush is a war criminal, but he doesn't fit the definition of terrorist. Postdlf 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't fit that definition of a terrorist. The problematic area is, is the definition itself NPOV? (Not that GWB is going to be an especially tricky case.) Alai 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The related problem is that most readers have some definition of terrorist in mind which is quite likely different than the one proposed here. I find it plain strange anyways that people that run a car of explosives into a group of army recruits is somehow characterized differently than someone who runs a car into a Shi'ah market. Categorizing various groups and individuals as terrorists is not helpful in understanding complex situations since it is utterly void of nuance. As I said above, I don't know why it is so hard to accept that the term is, especially in the English-speaking media, one that is used with such a variety of meanings and connotations. Pascal.Tesson 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn dubious decision, there are problems with the category but deletion will not necessarily be the solution. Vote counting isn't everything but to close this as delete without an ounce of explanation is bad play, and I'm afraid not the first time from Kbdank71. Tim! 13:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - As the original nom I still stick by my comments. Someone said there that the category is not the problem but the listings themselves are. We have rules about the use of the term 'terrorist' which, by allowing this category to exist, are being circumvented. If I go through each person that is listed and apply our WP:NPOV and WP:WTA rules there, I would remove the category. The majority in this case is very wrong, as the category simply is not NPOV.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Geek Group

I was wondering if I could have this article put in my userspace? So I can write a new article we've done a few notable things after it was deleted. Whisp e ring 20:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User:Whispering/The_Geek_Group. --humblefool ® 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Display Systems

I had marked this article for speedy deletion believing it was advertising. However, after its deletion, I received messages from its author saying it wasn't that at all. I now request its undeletion so the author can work on it more. Peter O. (Talk) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Request withdrawn. Peter O. (Talk) 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article had no context and was very spammy. I am moving it to a user subpage so he can work on it. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le faiseur d'or

I thought I was practical gathering the dull number research and page structure first before completing the text, but I have learned my lesson and will never again prematurely save a page in public. Now, if I could get the 4 hours I spent back and temporarily save onto my userpage, it would be nice. Humbly asking for a window of access to these I couldnt get in my cache.. Murgh 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved five articles to your userspace: User:Murgh/Le faiseur d'or, User:Murgh/Panade à Champignac, User:Murgh/L'ombre du Z, User:Murgh/Z comme Zorglub and User:Murgh/Les pirates du silence. I'll do the others later today, if noone beats me to it. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 I thought I was practical gathering the dull number research and page structure first before completing the text, but I have learned my lesson and will never again prematurely save a page in public.  Now, if I could get the 4 hours I spent back and temporarily save onto my userpage, it would be nice. Humbly asking for a window of access to these I couldnt get in my cache.. [[User:Murgh|Murgh]] 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 :I've moved five articles to your userspace: [[User:Murgh/Le faiseur d'or]], [[User:Murgh/Panade à Champignac]], [[User:Murgh/L'ombre du Z]], [[User:Murgh/Z comme Zorglub]] and [[User:Murgh/Les pirates du silence]]. I'll do the others later today, if noone beats me to it. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:Aecis|<font color="green">ecis</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Aecis|Dancing]] to electro-pop [[User talk:Aecis|like a robot]] from 1984.</sup> 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Airport Vandal]]====
-:{{la-admin|Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Airport Vandal}}
-Undeletion was requested by {{user|68.39.174.238}} on my talk page, I have undeleted the page. However I'm not sure it it should remain so - the original (speedy) delete reason was ''"Wikipedia has reached consensus that vandals should not have subpages (e.g. the North Carolina vandal and Mr. Pelican subpages have already been deleted)"'' and ''"unneeded information page on a blatant vandal"'', but we do have a number of vandal subpages under [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse]]. Thanks/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 10:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''' Vandals having subpage isn't a good idea under [[WP:DENY]], and this vandal doesn't seem to have been that big a deal anyway. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn'''.  [[WP:DENY]] is thankfully not policy, and if any consensus exists on such a thing, policy certainly doesn't reflect that.  If people want that deleted, send it to MfD. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''' The guy clearly wants attention. Don't give it to him. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''', pointless. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep Deleted''', per above. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
-*I have redeleted/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)