Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorists


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

List of terrorists
Potential for abuse; can never be 100% accurate or POV-free, prime vandal target page.  Delete. NSLE ( T + C + CVU ) 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Terrorist is such a harsh term, they prefer "Members of the terror community". Endomion 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Very POV. OBL may consider GWB a terrorist and GWB may consider OBL a terrorist. Both will deny the other accusation. Pepsidrinka 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; Criteria for inclusion is clear. Any deficiencies can be corrected. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cautious Keep. Not only needs strict inclusion criteria, but each item will need to be sourced.  I will make some recommendations on the Talk Page.  Logophile 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I already see a problem on the list.  Some of those listed are (at this time) only suspects.  Logophile 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Talking about guys like these ain't pleasant.  -- Eddie 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cautious Keep per Logophile. It seems like an list that cries out "vandalise me".  It will also always have an NPOV tag, even looking through it I was curious how Harry Truman fit into the terrorist list.  Since these are not valid reasons to delete an article I recommend keeping and closely moitoring it for compliance with whatever criteria for inclusion are set.  Movementarian 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No way this can ever be NPOV. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete can only be a pov piece. --Snakes 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Pepsidrinka. -- Kjkolb 07:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep--Potential for abuse is not a reason for deletion just as potential for vandalism is not a reason for protection. There is amble precedent on wikipedia that although some people take issue with the word terrorist, a reputable encyclopedia can use it. I think a safe way of maintaining articles would be to only list people who have wikipedia articles about them which refer to them as terrorists. Reasonable people know that OBL is a terrorist and GWB isnt a terrorist. The article can begin with an accepted definition of terrorists. Deleting this article is not a productive way to express your displeasure with the war on terrorism. Savidan 07:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - "terrorist" is such a subjective term. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pepsidrinka &mdash;Quarl 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason to delete. -- JJay 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is the list inherently POV, when we have Category:Terrorists and its 25 sub-categories, all neatly organized by nationality at Category:Terrorists by nationality? Why is it any different from List of Dictators, List_of_guerrillas, or List_of_guerrilla_movements- the latter two including some of the same people as List of terrorists? The statement that the page is a vandalism target is untrue. I count five reversions in the last five months, or less than some school articles I monitor get reverted in a day. Also for those who use the GWB argument as a criteria for deletion, my personal feeling is that Bush Derangement Syndrome should be required reading for all editors and that GWB should be added by a bot to every list on the site including List of fictional Elvis impersonators. -- JJay 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's inherently POV. --Rob 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - A civilian who lived in Iraq or Afganistan, who experienced US Air strikes may consider George W. Bush as a terrorist. Can he be included in this list ?-- Soft coder  Talk 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", the label is applied based on the POV of the authors or the country of residence of the authors. A list could be made of "List of those whom the US Government consider Terroists", but a generic one like this is just silly and inheritantly POV. - UnlimitedAccess 12:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete echoing a lot of the above. --Alf melmac 13:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not so much per the nomination (let's not let the vandals determine the content of this encyclopedia in any way!) but per the reasoning by User:UnlimitedAccess above. --Joann e B 13:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom.  Sceptre ( Talk ) 13:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for hopeless POV situation. The lengthy preamble does not adequately define the requirements for inclusion on such a serious list considering that every one of the five suggested criteria are highly subjective. If the requirement were redefined to be objective and verifiable, like, as UnlimitedAccess suggests, by qualifying the title with US Gov't-labeled, or self-proclaimed or convicted, I'd be thrilled to keep it. ×Meegs 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would add Bush into it. Tempting. __earth 13:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bush is a terrorist? Since when? And he would be prosecutred under the Patriot Act. --Kilo-Lima 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when is being prosecuted under the Patriot Act a prerequisite for being a terrorist. Last I checked, a terrorist is someone who uses terror as a means of completing some goal, whether it be political or religious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "shock and awe" is a means of terrorizing people. Pepsidrinka 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Troll magnet de luxe. JFW | T@lk  14:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - How can stating someone's name be POV? And subject to vandalism? Kilo-Lima 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - yes, we need to make sure that terrorists and only terrorists as defined by the majority of civilized people are on this list and not people who are responsible for giving millions of others a purple finger. I realize that terrorist can be subject to interpretation but to even contemplate comparing UBL to GWB is obscene.--Kalsermar 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - "civilized people", again another POV term. A non "Civilised" culture often just means a non "Western Culture", certainly tribal Africans and Australian Aborigonies arent "civilised" to Westerners. So a list of Terrorists as defined by the majority of "civilized people" is just a list of people the West consider Terrorists. Lets cut the crap, this is not an innocent generic list of Terrorists, we all have a POV lets not be naive, this is a list of Terrorists as defined by Western Countries and in general the USA. - UnlimitedAccess 19:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You make that last statement sound like it is a bad thing. Why the obsession of many people to be so all inclusive and PC. This is an English language Encyclopedia and naturally it is centered on the anglophone world, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. That is inho not strange, unexpected or bad. Do you think an Iranian or Arabic encyclopedia states anything good about Ben-Gurion, or mentions him at all? Would a Soviet-era encyclopedia sing the praises of western style democracy or Winston Churchill? No, of course not. and neither do I expect them to. In the same manner, I think it is perfectly normal for the en: Wiki to be western centered.--Kalsermar 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Trying to avoid a English POV for the English Wikipedia entirely is near impossible, but that does not mean it should not be attempted and fought dayly for. I did not mean to imply my last sentence is a bad thing. Articles can be ethnocentric and bias as long as they point that out, ie "List of Terroirst as considered by the US Government" etc... but a generic list of "Terrorists" is not useful unless it only contains those that are self admitted terrorists. "Would a Soviet-era encyclopedia sing the praises of western style democracy or Winston Churchill", I would hope not and nor should the English one either, no article in ANY wikipedia should sing the praise of anything or anyone. - UnlimitedAccess 06:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are going to describe a civilised person as "civilised" and POV, then what would you rather call them? --Kilo-Lima 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inescapably POV - there's no meaningful, neutral way to define "terrorist." Compare to "list of stupid people" or "list of jerks." (ESkog)(Talk) 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Defining terrorist is very difficult. There is no solid definition. Remember that by some Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist at first. I'd wager a bet that many people don't think Mr. Mandela is a terrorist now. Just... delete. Deskana (talk page) 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - A tremendous amount of work has gone into maintaining this article, which was created on 8 March 2003.  I refer to it constantly and would be disappointed to see it deleted. Admittedly, the word "terrorist" in the title is uncomfortable: Perhaps a better title--Lists of indivuals who have committed acts of political violence-- would solve the problem?--Professor Right 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Professor Right
 * Delete as titled: terrorist is a prime example of a word to avoid and thisis prime vandal/POV warrior fodder. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment- I feel that citing the reason "this article is a prime target for being vandalised" for a delete is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Personally I think it should be deleted, but surely "Vandalism target" is not a valid reason? Deskana (talk page) 20:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also untrue. -- JJay 20:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete- POV. Reyk 21:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please "always explain your reasoning," even just a short one. See Guide_to_deletion. - brenneman (t) (c)  23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV. This article is a prime target for being vandalised, but so is GWB. That's not a reason to delete. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Clearly a controversial topic like this requires sources for each and every person being accused as Terrorists. Let's acknowledge where those sources are coming from and not pretend a Terrorist to one country is the same in every other country. As Jimbo Jones says (and I paraphrase poorly) "When we write an article we dont write what *is* we write what people believe acknowledging those people." - UnlimitedAccess 07:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless each person on the list is specifically sourced to a third-party (such as an NGO or a news organization) and those not convicted or confessed of any terrorist crimes are moved to "List of accused terrorists." FCYTravis 07:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And then how will we ensure that it stays that way? It's unmaintainable... not that that is a deletion criterion, of course. -  brenneman (t) (c)  08:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete since it lacks a definition. Pages on "Europol-listed terrorists", or some thing like that would be valid, but not just "Terrorists", Gronky 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article makes it reasonably clear what a terrorist is. It needs to be verified, but thats a job for the proper warning template, not Deletion. Also suggest FCYTravis's suggestion above. Any POV is systemic to being a list of POVs. --68.40.61.189 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The above vote is actually mine, forgot to sign in -- Tznkai 07:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subjective. Neutralitytalk 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 'Terrorism' of one kind or other has been going on throughout history, but I see that Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela, and Daniel Ortega are not on the list. Imc 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a POV nightmare; we could perhaps have multiple, attributed' lists of people officialy designated as terrorists by particular governments, with cites given, but not this. -- Karada 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The category page has clear and easily followed criteria for inclusion. Arguments that So-and-so don't appear on the list are arguments for putting So-and-so on the list, not for deleting it.Benami 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inaccurate and a severe POV issue that really can't be fixed. Stifle 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous -- I say "keep" if names such as George W Bush (responsible for mass murdering of 100.000 Iraqi civilians) will be included. If not, i say "delete", because then this list only reflects the POV of men in power who have set the definition of what is supposed to be 'terrorism' and what not (always excluding their terrorising self). -- ActiveSelective 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It is a well worked on and very long list, though. Under certain conditions, I could accept it even when it does not have the name of G W Bush on it: (1) When it is renamed to "list of individual terrorists" (terrorists operating alone or in small bands, independently of official powers), AND (2) when we start building a "list of state terrorists" (terrorists who have control over the official state power), including the name of... you can guess who. -- I am not trying to be funny. We do have a good article on State terrorism which includes actions of countries such as UK and USA, and official institutes such as the CIA. -- ActiveSelective 15:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.