Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-05/Left-wing terrorism

Where is the dispute?
Article in dispute:Left-wing terrorism Dispute: Talk:Left-wing_terrorism

Who is involved?

 * User:The Four Deuces
 * User:Themightyquill

What is the dispute?
I have suggested that usage of the word terrorism/terrorist should include specific attribution, in line with WP:LABEL (formerly WP:TERRORIST). The article has changed dramatically since the dispute began, but the principle of attribution remains in dispute.

What would you like to change about this?
From my point of view, the wikipedia guideline is very clear. I feel that The Four Deuces has a problem with the guideline, not with this article.

How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure.

Mediator notes
I hereby withdraw my offer to mediate this dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevant policies: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:ATTACK, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPA
 * Relevant guidelines: WP:LABEL, WP:CFORK
 * Relevant essays: WP:COAT
 * Involved editors should (ideally) be notified of mediation by the requesting party (TheMightyQuill), although a note on the article's talk page would be sufficient.

Discussion
I am prepared to offer my services as mediator. I see a dispute involving a number of longtime Wikipedians in good standing who, armed with a good knowledge of policies and guidelines, are starting to "dig in" a bit. I invite civil statements articulating concerns from article participants. Brevity is appreciated. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to mediate, Scjessey. I don't have much to say beyond my description of the conflict in the summary above. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. I shall wait for comment from other editors before offering any advice. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly the term should not be used unless there is academic consensus for it. But WP:LABEL is a guideline not a policy, and strict adherence to it in an article about terrorism would be disruptive to the article, considering that the term "terror" and derivatives are used over 90 times.  Consider this phrasing:  "Stefan Aubrey has accused Latin American groups...of becoming actively involved in terrorism...."  The reference to a single scholar detracts from the fact that this represents a consensus view.  It implies doubt whether these groups carried out bombings, kidnappings, etc., rather than whether these actions should be called terrorist.  Note that the article does not call any of these South Anerican groups or their general activities terrorist.
 * It seems odd to have mediation on this article when it is part of a group of articles about terrorism, all of which would have the same issue. Also, while the editors involved on the discussion page disagree over several issues, this does not appear to be a concern.
 * TFD (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking into this a bit, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw my offer to mediate this dispute. It would seem to me that where attribution is available, it should be used. Wikipedia's voice should not be used to label individuals or groups. This entire article seems to violate a series of core policies and guidelines and I am concerned about its very existence, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I'm not sure that I agree it's the case, if it's not possible to write this article without attributing accusations of "terrorism", then I think the article has bigger problems. If the even sources themselves do not label the groups or their activities "terrorism", the article could quite legitimately be rewritten as Left-wing freedom fighters using the very same sources (which would, of course, be equally problematic). No attribution means it's either not verifiable (no source) or it's synthesis (multiple incomplete sources), neither of which are kosher. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)