User:J D/todo


 * Work on restoring removed ALF media - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Liberation_Front&action=history
 * Raise discussion about mismatch between WP:TERRORISM explanation and actual use at main articles, e.g., Al-Qaeda, IS
 * Nelson Mandela only ties the US terrorism classification to Reagan
 * cf RAF whose attacks were against political and military figures/institutions

Current project: consistent treatment for labeling as "terrorism"
Draft plan of action:

1. Advocate for revision and clarification of wikipolicy on labeling individuals and organizations as "terrorists."
Current policy says that "Value-laden labels—such as calling […] 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"

Problems with current policy:
 * 1) Infamously, there is no agreed upon, objective definition of "terrorism." There is nothing close to agreement on such a definition. As WIkipedia's Terrorism page notes: … (intent? military targets? …)


 * 1) Labels such as "terrorist" are not merely "value-laden," but are deeply pejorative and always imply a political perspective. As Terrorism notes: "The terms 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels [...]" (emphasis mine)


 * 1) Simply following "widely used by reliable sources" means wikipedia will echo the often-unified point of view of Anglo-American media and government, rather than be neutral. (For contemporary issues such as this, enwiki is more reliant on major media and government spokespeople than usual). Because there is currently a wave of anti-Islamic bias, where Muslims are often widely classified as terrorists "by reliable sources" while their non-Muslim counterparts are not(Greenwald ref), the result of actually employing current policy would lead to predictable and undesirable bias.


 * 1) Most important of all, the policy as written does not match actual practice. Consider the cases that would likely be cited as canonical of terrorism: Al-Qaeda is described as a … and nowhere on the page are they ……… These are all high quality pages, so presumably this is an intentional decision resulting from long established consensus. But no one could doubt

The problems with WP:LABELS have been addressed before. A policy discussion (WP:Use_of_the_word_terrorism_(policy_development)) appears to have reached consensus about some issues, though nothing seems to have ever come of the agreements there. Nonetheless, it appears that the closest thing Wikipedia has to consensus on policy on use of "terrorist" (#Draft No. 4) begins: "Wikipedia does not directly label individuals or groups as terrorists." (The policy arrived at there seems to be common for neutral style; compare Reuter's Handbook of Journalism: "Nor do we use the word “terrorist” without attribution to qualify specific individuals, groups or events.".)


 * (Note: similarly, the "freedom fighter" label mentioned at WP:LABELS also fails NPOV, as it is deeply hagiographic. I'm focused on the use of "terrorism" because it is the term most often abused, but any new policy should also apply to labeling figures as "freedom fighters."

Proposal:
 * 1) For classification: Use descriptive words and NPOV language. "Militant," "insurgent," … all offer a more detailed description without resorting to …
 * 2) Document "terrorism" classifications by source (as practices in most prominant articles.) (My comment on raf talk spelled this out?)