Talk:1993 in South Africa

"Terrorist" and NPOV
I reworded all references to "terrorist" to "insurgents" as it seems to me that using the term "terrorist" likely violates the WP:NPOV requirement. I see that this has been reverted. Whilst I agree that the individuals might well meet the definition of "terrorist" very well in this context I still feel this is a violation of NPOV. Terms such as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" can both be used equally accurately in this and related articles depending on an individual's point of view, whilst "insurgent" or "militant" are more neutral terms. As such I strongly suggest that the all references to "terrorist" (or "freedom fighter" should they also occur in this article) be changed to a less emotive and more neutral terms such as "insurgent". --Discott (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my original comment: A terrorist by definition is someone who has the stated intention to make some political point by means of terrorising people. The ANC (and MK) had declared an "Armed Struggle" against the South African state. They were defined by the legislation at the time as terrorists. They were NOT insurgents, which carries connotations of it's own. You could call them "freedom fighters" if you wished, but that's not neutral. As much as anyone might object to the actions of the government of SA at the time, they were the legally elected government and as such people engaging in armed insurrection are not insurgents but closer to the definition of terrorists. Maybe we can agree on a different term? "armed insurrectionists" is clumsy, but probably the most neutral.. BoonDock (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitions:


 * terrorist - ˈtɛrərɪst: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. "a terrorist organization" synonyms: bomber, arsonist, incendiary. or from Wikipedia: Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians)
 * insurgent - ɪnˈsəːdʒ(ə)nt: a person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary. "an attack by armed insurgents" synonyms:	rebel, revolutionary, revolutionist, mutineer, agitator, subversive, guerrilla, anarchist, terrorist, bioterrorist, narcoterrorist, ecoterrorist, cyberterrorist, agroterrorist, rioter; From Wikipedia: An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. An insurgency can be fought via counter-insurgency warfare, and may also be opposed by measures to protect the population, and by political and economic actions of various kinds aimed at undermining the insurgents' claims against the incumbent regime. The nature of insurgencies is an ambiguous concept.
 * insurrectionˌɪnsəˈrɛkʃ(ə)n - a violent uprising against an authority or government. "the insurrection was savagely put down" synonyms: rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, insurgency, rising, rioting, riot, sedition; From Wikipedia: Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or taking over the position of an established authority such as a government, governor, president, political leader, financial institution, or person in charge
 * The best fit in my opinion based on the DEFINITION is terrorist. The other definitions all ignore the campaign of deliberate violence aimed at innocents/non-combatants! BoonDock (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to label them as either, especially as the relevant text in the article is unsourced. "Members of XYZ" is the most neutral term. See WP:TERRORIST: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Helen  Online  12:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with HelenOnline. Much better stated than the way I stated it.--Discott (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi BoonDock, I find the argument that the pre-1994 government classified them as "terrorists" therefore they are "terrorists" and therefor not-NPOV violation unconvincing. I suspect that a significant number of South Africans would not agree with that terminology and find it a very politically loaded description of them just as another group of South Africans would fined the tern "freedom fighter" similarly politically loaded and therefore not-NPOV. "Terrorist", however accurately it might describe the activities or nature of the individual in question, is not a neutral term in this context (ie. apartheid period South African history). It should not be hard to find an accurate alternative term to describe people in this context in South African history differently that everyone would find more neutral.--Discott (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's not hard then suggest one please. Just make sure it accurately describes the people we are talking about and their activities please. Insurgent doesn't cut it. BoonDock (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already did ("members of XYZ"). Your personal opinion, unsupported by reliable sources, on what value-laden label describes them does not belong in Wikipedia. Helen  Online  13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I posted the definitions I could find from dictionaries and added the WP definitions as well and asked quite reasonably that we try to find a term that describes the people involved and their actions. I asked that we get a concensus on this because clearly there are different points of view on what is emotive. I suggest that the intention should be accuracy rather than any pandering to political correctness. I don't appreciate snide comments that imply that you know better than I do what belongs on WP. Please keep the discussion based on the topic.BoonDock (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll concede the use of terms like cadres, insurgents, even (reluctantly) freedom fighters in most instances such as acts of sabotage, attacks on police stations or defence installations, skirmishes with the police or military, etc. Those can all be considered as legitimate targets. But attacks on soft targets with the explicit object to kill or maim unarmed civilians, women and children, such as in banks, bombs at restaurants and pubs, landmines on farm roads, limpet mines on public transport or in public places, armed attacks on hotels, taverns and, the worst of the worst, on a congregation inside a church during a church service, can ONLY be defined as acts of terrorism. Even more so in the year 1993, when preparations for the 1994 elections were well underway. The same goes for atrocities attributed to the statutory forces. A history page is not the place for political correctness. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my tactless comment and withdraw it. The point I was trying to make is that it is not for any of us to decide on what value-laden term to use here regardless of the circumstances, "members" is not value-laden and that remains my suggestion. Helen  Online  15:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think HelenOnline's suggestion is the best one and simply say "members of XYZ" although in cases where the "terrorist's" organisation (XYZ) is unknown it might be a bit more challenging to use that term. I am not particularity interested in political correctness just NPOV. However I can see how political correctness could influence that but I think that is likely a red herring.  HelenOnline is right to bring up WP:TERRORIST on value-laden words.  I think we should use that as a guide.--Discott (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the word 'terrorist' has no place here. Even the Wikipedia article, quoted in part above, states "The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A study on political terrorism examining over 100 definitions of "terrorism" found 22 separate definitional elements (e.g. Violence, force, fear, threat, victim-target differentiation). In some cases, the same group may be described as "freedom fighters" by its supporters and considered to be terrorists by its opponents. The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state)." The solution above, "members of the Azanian People's...", is best. Greenman (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The current line in this article is "Azanian People's Liberation Army terrorists open fire on a congregation in St James Church in Kenilworth, Cape Town, killing eleven and injuring fifty". I guess you are suggesting that we change that to be "Members of the Azanian People's Liberation Army terrorists open fire on a congregation in St James Church in Kenilworth, Cape Town, killing eleven and injuring fifty". How would you feel about "Members of the Azanian People's Liberation Army massacre members of a congregation in St James Church in Kenilworth, Cape Town, killing eleven and injuring fifty"?BoonDock (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like it could be the best way to word it. Even though it might sound a bit odd. :-/ --Discott (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps better would be to describe the event in the same way as the massacre in October. So "Five school children are killed in the Mthatha Massacre when the South African Defence Force opens fire on the house of a member of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC)." and "Eleven congregants are killed, and fifty injured, when members of the Azanian People's Liberation Army open fire on a congregation in the St James Church Massacre" Greenman (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So sorry I caught this conversation so late. Hmmm... lets see. I agree with Helen  on a more neutral and less loaded way to report a historical fact more accurately. User Greenman just stole the way I would have reworded that sentence. It should surfice for the purpose of a wikipedia article to define sides involved in a conflict. Just as it would suffice to refer to the weermacht as such when describing an encounter with the Red army in stalingrad. Instead of using "The evil invading army belonging to hitler" correct as that may be widely accepted. So too in South Africa, to millions of south african citizens, the army could easily fit the definition of a terrorist organization if the bench mark to be used is killing women and children in a place of worship. I could give you a dozen examples to prove this point. The Azanian People's Liberation Army the MK and other liberation armies were defined as Terrorists by the South African government back then. What about the fact that these organizations were unbanned in 1990 by the same government? would you still refer to them as terrorists in 1993? Who has an authority to define one organization as a terrorist and another as not?-- Thuvack  | talk 19:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore what makes the Azanian People's Liberation Army deserve to be terrorists and the African National Congress as well as Inkatha Freedom Party not terrorists??-- Thuvack | talk 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I intended to let this be, but then... A couple of points, Thuvack:
 * "...what makes the Azanian People's Liberation Army deserve to be terrorists and the African National Congress as well as Inkatha Freedom Party not terrorists??"
 * The action determines the term, not the organisation the perpetrators belonged to. Where soft targets were involved (for example Magoo's Bar, Church Street, Silverton Bank, all MK actions), the applicable term would be terrorist as well.
 * "...the army could easily fit the definition of a terrorist organization if the bench mark to be used is killing women and children in a place of worship. I could give you a dozen examples to prove this point."
 * A dozen examples of the Army killing women and children in a place of worship? I'll not be holding my breath on this one. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to have brought us back to the beginning of this discussion again. The issue is not one of definition, pretty much all of the organisations discussed here (including the South African government of the time depending on how one expands the term or one's point of view) could relatively easily, or definitely do, fit the definition of "terrorist" organisations or supporting organisations.  The issue is that the term violates WP:NPOV, or perhaps more precisely WP:TERRORIST, as it is a value-laden word.  However, it appears to me, (and I hope I am not speaking too soon) that we do seem to be reaching a consensus of sorts.  Namely that it should simply say "members of XYZ" along with other non-emotive, purely discriptive, language.  If I am not mistaken this is what  Helen, Greenman, and Thuvack are suggesting and is also something I would suggest too.  Do you guys feel that is a correct interpretation on my part? --Discott (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just be clear here.

If the above is not an accurate statement, then we need to rethink. BoonDock (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) We are talking about a series of articles not just this one
 * 2) We are saying that the term Terrorist is unacceptably emotionally biased irrespective of widespread international agreement at the time that this was in fact terrorism?
 * 3) therefore that you will all support me when I change the article on 9/11 to remove any references to terrorists and or a terrorist organization and refer to them as simply "members".
 * Hi BoonDock, those are interesting questions. I can't speak for anyone else but my answers are:
 * Yes, although I only had South African history articles in mind I suppose it could be, maybe should be, universalised. My assumption is that it is already.
 * I would have to say yes. Emotionally I want to say no but it strikes me that yes is the most logical answer.
 * Unless there is some special reason why American and/or the 9/11 article is special, or there is some other reason we are not aware of, I suppose I would have to support you if you made those changes. Although it would mean we would have to greatly expand the scope of this discussion and involve a much wider group of participants.  Perhaps that is what is needed?  Either way I would be surprised if the 9/11 article or articles related to the Israel/Palestine conflict have not already had this debate.  I suspect that would be the best place to start when looking at this across all articles on en.Wikipedia. I am looking through the 9/11 talk page archive for "terrorism" and NPOV and I see that there was a poll done in 2004 on this which was inconclusive.  I suspect some thing like the Israel/Palestine conflict is more similar to the South African context and might be a better place to look(?).  This is the best I have been able to find there.  They basically point to WP:TERRORIST as the answer.
 * I suppose overall I think your stated points are accurate.--Discott (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no blanket answers to your questions, and I don't understand why you are ignoring the answers already given to you. In each case you need to apply WP:TERRORIST: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." We can say "XYZ was declared a terrorist organisation by ABC" if we have adequate reliable sources for that but we cannot use the term otherwise. Helen  Online  07:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

, I'm NOT ignoring the "answers" given to me. I'm examining everything in what I think is an objective manner. For example, you quote WP:TERRORIST and ignore everything past the key word there which is unless and it continues unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. The way I read that, is that according to WP:TERRORIST itself, the 9/11 attack IS referred to widely as terrorist attacks by terrorists, and I am trying to see whether the same is in fact the case here. I haven't had the time as yet to search properly for sources of this, but with a very brief search on Google, some of the first links that come up (including the TRC report) refer to this as a terrorist attack. See for example here which describes it as "A terrorist attack on St. James Church in Cape Town, South Africa left 11 people dead and 58 wounded." I seriously don't want to create controversy where there is none, but I raised the issue of 9/11 in my questions above precisely because I was curious about your quoting of WP:TERRORIST and that my reading of it differed so much, and the only conclusion I could come to is that the distinction is the widely used codicil to the initial part. BoonDock (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like we are going a bit off topic here. The issue is not whether these attacks were terrorist attacks, many of them clearly were such as the St. James Church attack or 9/11.  The issue is if the perpetrators should be referred to at "terrorists" or something else that is more neutral and less value-laden.--Discott (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought that was the point. If it was terrorism and it was widely reported as such, then according to WP:TERRORISM we should call it that in the article, just making sure that we use "in-text attribution". Or am I reading WP:TERRORISM incorrectly? BoonDock (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again, Discott: "The action determines the term, not the organisation the perpetrators belonged to." Therefore, since the St. James Church attack or 9/11 are recognised as terrorist attacks, how can the perpetrators be referred to as anything else but "terrorists"? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be useful to quote here from the Wiki page 9/11 Attacks:

The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage.

Four passenger airliners were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. BoonDock (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have two things to say:
 * @André Kritzinger- In this context and to the best of my knowledge the action does not determine the term when referring to the individual or organisation.
 * @BoonDock- WP:TERRORIST states: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion." No where in that does it state that the activities they are doing should or should not be referred to in any particular way.  What it does say is that when referring to organisations or persons then value-laden labels such as "terrorist" should be avoided.  How we refer to actions is different to who how we refer to organisations or people.
 * Don't know how else to say it but I feel it is pretty clear.--Discott (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to my reading of WP:TERRORISM refers to the act as in a terrorist event and not to the individual or organisation which is what we are talking about here.--Discott (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see your bolding. You say "we can't". I point you again to the 9/11 article (quoted above) and ask "Says who?" BoonDock (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Says the guideline. If you have a problem with how the guideline is being applied elsewhere, then take it up there. We do not need to invent a new guideline. Beyond the guideline, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to add a clearly contentious label that is unnecessary unless they are promoting a specific POV. Helen  Online  10:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Discott:
 * 1. "How we refer to actions is different to who how we refer to organisations or people."
 * Events/actions are exactly what we have been talking about here - that's what all these year articles are made up of, not?
 * 2. "According to my reading of WP:TERRORISM refers to the act as in a terrorist event and not to the individual or organisation which is what we are talking about here."
 * You cannot separate the act, as in a terrorist event, from the individual or organisation that perpetrates it. If you do, the action/event becomes just an ordinary violent crime and not a politically motivated one.
 * Which is why, when it comes to these types of events, I differentiated and used the PC terms "cadre", "member", "freedom fighter" (rarely), "insurgent" etc. whenever the targets of the actions of these para-military armed "resistance" or "struggle" organisations could be considered "legitimate", such as acts of sabotage, attacks on police stations or defence installations, skirmishes with the police or military, etc., and the correct term of "terrorist" where it concerned attacks on soft targets with the explicit object to kill or maim unarmed civilians, women and children.
 * The action (or event), therefore, do determine the term to be used.
 * That is, as far as I'm concerned, a clear and fair enough distinction. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @André Kritzinger "The action (or event), therefore, do determine the term to be used." and as soon as you do that you are into the realms of original research. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead in the article September 11 attacks needs changing to meet the NPOV policy and the MOS guidance. It should not be used as an example to justify further breaches of policy and guidance. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I came here because of the invitation at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. First I refer you to a quote in the "Bombing of Dresden in World War II" (citation there): "Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation""

Second a section in the article "terrorism" called "Pejorative use".

WP:TERRORISM has already been mentioned another useful links with advise are WP:ASSERT and WP:MORALIZE.

This type of debate used to be far more common than it is now, and there used to be far more guidance on it. See for example here which explains how to replace the word terrorist with factual descriptions such as hijacker, bomber etc. There are plenty of pages where this has been discussed many times. Perhaps the best example was the debate over the lead of Al-Qaeda which ended in the removal of "terrorist" in the passive narrative voice, but as the guidelines suggest kept the in the lead the in-text assertion "[Al-Qaeda] has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries (see below)." -- the debate that reached that conclusion is to be found in the talk page archives of the article.

-- PBS (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel that PBS has very effectively answered the question around the use of the word "terrorist" on Wikipedia articles as well as provided us with some helpful guides on how to deal with this issue in the future. Thanks PBS.--Discott (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)