Talk:Bertil Wedin

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
On the edit history page, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters suggests&mdash;perfectly reasonably&mdash;from reading the TRC decision, that the ANC bombing was aimed at property destruction. However, this is not the case: see Craig_Williamson. The target was ANC president Oliver Tambo. Phase1 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I admit that I really hope Category:Terrorists goes away altogether, since it's inherently POV (it's a pejorative, not a description). Still, as long as it does exist, we have a couple evidentiary requirements for inclusion:
 * The intent to kill Tambo should be evidenced on the Wedil page itself, not merely be something that someone might know from other places. Category membership needs to flow out of the page content, not be some unstated background knowledge.
 * An attempt to assassinate Tambo is obviously a bad thing. But an assassination (which Wedil is guilty of either way) is not really the same thing as "terrorism".  Targetting a specific political leader is certainly deplorable, but it's not the same as instilling a general background fear in a civilian population.
 * Is there a Category:Assassins? That would seem much more fitting for Wedin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wedin's boss, Craig Williamson, has admitted assassinations and bombings so he is categorized "assassin" and "terrorist". Wedin has been acquitted of burglarizing the PAC office in London. He has not even been charged with murder (of Olof Palme) or attempted murder (of Oliver Tambo) so it is not correct to describe him as an assassin. I know you have problems with the Category:Terrorists (vide Categories for deletion page) but I have no such hang-ups: therefore Wedin is a terrorist.Phase1 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The category page says:
 * ...individuals included in this category should have admitted to, or endorsed, violence against civilians in a terrorist logic, or at least the use of terrorist tactics should be well-documented and undisputed.
 * From what I can see in the article, Wedin has not admitted to the acts you would characterize as terrorist, nor is his involvement "undisputed." And the London bombing is alleged to be an attempted assassination, which is not quite "terrorism." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Undisputed" implies Wedin has been accused/charged and has declined to dispute the accusation/charge. The fact is that he is a "suspected" terrorist. That should be enough to qualify him for the accolade.Phase1 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But in the interview in the article itself, it says that Wedin "disputes" the allegations. And he hasn't been convicted of anything.  My hunch, from the limited info I have, is that Wedin is probably guilty of some pretty terrible things.  But an editor's hunch that someone is a terrorist shouldn't be enough to classify them so.  And even there, "assassin" (attempted or successful) is much closer to the hunch anyway.


 * FWIW, looking at your edit history, I'm sure you know a lot more about this topic than I do. The truth is that I was only attracted to the page to try to eliminate over-categorized people (but not generically; even though I think the category is pejorative rather than factual, I did not remove names where the article seemed to support the category criteria, even though I'd rather have a less POV category name).  I just haven't seen the supporting evidence that Wedin fits the category criteria (in a way that meets WP:V, not WP:Hunch. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. So, let me see, what evidence fits seamlessly into the category criteria for Osama bin Laden?Phase1 01:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I want to remove that membership too. But there will be a lot more proponents of "commentary by categorization" over at the more famous figure.  Not to say I won't check that more thoroughly later.  Still, some of the names in the category describe the person in the lead as "well-known terrorist" or the like.  While that characterization may not stand up to WP:NPOV and/or WP:V, it has persumably survived some rounds of editing, so has a certain presumption in favor (and no, just adding the word retroactively to the Wedin article doesn't do the same thing).


 * All that said, the case for bin Laden categorization is far better than for Wedin. bin Laden has made quite public statements saying "I support these acts of violence".  Wedin, on the other hand, has publicly said "I had nothing to do with those acts".  Sure, Wedin is probably lying, but that's the difference between undisputed and disputed. For that matter, I haven't attempted to uncat Williamson either; the evidence there is much better. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with this analysis of the problem, which seems to be generally applicable. Suggest Wedin is revisited once the result of the current CfD debate is known.Phase1 09:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The CfD on the Terrorist category is going to fail, to my disappointment. But that's irrelevant to anything I wrote on this talk page.  All my objections here are premised on the category existing; given that it exists, Wedin does not fit the stated criteria based on what is in evidence in the article.  Whether bin Laden does or not is a matter to be discussed on the corresponding talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Unsourced
Seek and ye shall find, Arre!Phase1 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seek what, sources? There is no single source now, so of course it is "unsourced"? About the intro, it should be noted that blaming Wedin for the Palme assassination is not common. True or not, it is a fringe opinion that is almost universally considered a conspiracy theory in Sweden. Arre 02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. The three "External links" for the article sourced the accusation against Wedin. I accept what you say about a "single source" however and have revised the intro to identify Wedin's accuser, Peter Caselton, as well as to provide a link specifically for this accusation. As for Sweden considering it a conspiracy theory, so does the Olof Palme article – Conspiracy theories: South Africa connection.Phase1 13:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * okay. the new intro is fine with me. Arre 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bertil Wedin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anc.org.za/anc/newsbrief/1996/news1005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107113439/http://www.contrast.org:80/truth/html/olof_palme.html to http://www.contrast.org/truth/html/olof_palme.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)