Category talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army actions in London

Categorisation
What definition of terrorism are we using for the categorisation of all IRA actions in London as terrorism? Gob Lofa (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that the literature references them as such.  Snowded  TALK  06:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What literature? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * |All of these for starters, Now show me a substantive reference to this new category you have created if you want to be taken seriously  Snowded  TALK  10:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * |Seriously? Here.But what's their relevance? There are zero references in this category. How are you going to reference a category? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well done, the term has some use. Now show how the balance of citations supports its use on the pages in which you inserted it (including this one).  Oh and get some other editors involved if you want to make changes Snowded  TALK  10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, because its neutrality is the main support for its use, trumping historically popular but value-laden terms. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find this category along with your fondness of changing PIRA to IRA in articles only giving credence to the idea that you are trying to sanitise the Provos actions. That is hardly the work of WP:NPOV. Far more sources would call it terrorism and on Wikipedia we must give due weight and balance to the mainstream viewpoint. In fact this category is the only such category on Wikipedia, and its parent Category:Violent non-state actor incidents by year was created by you, as was its parent category Category:Violent non-state actor incidents. May well make reference to your other category Category:Violent non-state actor incidents by perpetrator‎.

Now after all the years since Wikipedia came about, if VNSA was such a commonplace term for these kind of actions/incidents then why have they never been used before? Surely if it was as neutral and balanced as you say then there would be a plethora of articles covering all such groups added to such categories over the years. In reality only you are pushing it and on an incredibly limited scope.

If you wish to pursue it, open an WP:RFC, something which I've told you to do before, and if you believe in your conviction that much, see if other editors agree. Mabuska (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How does changing PIRA to IRA sanitise anything? I have no problem describing some Provisional actions as terrorism, but that's my subjective viewpoint, based on the definition I use. My definition is not a basis for deciding how Wikipedia should define terrorism, nor should yours be. I agree about the sources, but since we don't have a precise definition of terrorism (and one is not always supplied by the source), it's often difficult to know exactly what they mean, a situation averted by using a clear and unambiguous term. I'm proud of creating these categories and helping to grow Wikipedia, but why do you say the term VNSA has never been used before I used it? I didn't concoct it. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As my comment made clear, the use of the term on Wikipedia especially in regards to categories. Stop deflecting. Mabuska (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mabuska, we obviously don't even share the same definition of 'clear'.Gob Lofa (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)