Wikipedia:Terrorists category discussions/Archive 2

Note: For a list of previous deletion debates see Categories for discussion/Terrorists. Here are some searches of Categories for discussion for terrorism and terrorist: and. They pull up many discussions of various terrorism and terrorist categories. See also the top of Category talk:Terrorism for links to discussions.

Distinguishing state terrorism
I've added "Non-state actor" back as a qualifier to distinguish state terrorism--this was part of the November 2005 consensus writeup below. User: Nat Krause removed it a while back, claiming POV; this is a misunderstanding. The category specification is not intended to claim that states do not perpetrate acts of terrorism, merely that these acts belong on their own list. I tried to make that explicit on the category page and included a number of links to the preferred category. Please let me know what you think--I know the subject inspires a great deal of emotion, but I believe we can best accomodate the span of views through informative text rather than changing categorizations.---Knoepfle 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent archival
Please see the note below for the rationale behind the archival and the page protection. --HappyCamper 03:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Another solution
It has been a number of weeks now since another contributor has commented on anything here, so it seems that only two editors are involved at the moment. How about this? Let's give everyone a chance to break from this article.

I'll protect both the category and the talk page for say, 5 days. At the same time, I'm also going to archive the discussion on this talk page. That way, after the 5 days, everyone will have a blank talk page to work with, and symbolically it will be a clean start. This hasn't been tried before, so would you two be willing to give this a chance? --HappyCamper 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, good... protect, archive, I'll chill and relax. Thanks muchly, HappyCamper. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I'll be bold and protected it anyway. The idea is for everyone to relax and break from this article for the next 5 days. We can reinvigorate the discussion again afterwards. I will notify both of you when I unprotect these pages, so you don't have to continually worry about monitoring this page. In the meantime, please feel free to post on my talk page if something else comes up.


 * Here, I think we can all use these lovely tulips too. Ah! Smell the unique fragrance of spring!! --HappyCamper 03:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)



Proposed rewrite
I unprotected this talk page because I just happened to come by today and I have something to add, and of course it's not fair if only admins can post. (It's actually rather unusual to protect talk pages, but I hope I'm not unduly interrupting anyone's wikibreak by posting here...)

I find the current description to be overly formal and somewhat wordy (something I am often guilty of myself), and as I previously mentioned, missing a few helpful links to related articles. Please discuss the following replacement. (Though feel free to take a few days to think about it before responding.) I have tried to make this definition more consistent with terrorism, which has already been successfully hashed out among a number of editors. -- Beland 05:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and might I recommend the use of Requests for comment and/or Third opinion to help resolve any future impasses? I will try not to neglect this page quite so much, though I often let controversial questions stew for a while before responding. -- Beland 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed text
This category (and subcategories) is for individuals only. For organizations, see Category:Terrorism and List of terrorist organizations.

There exist many different definitions of terrorism, but the article terrorism notes the following most commonly included elements:


 * Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
 * Targeting civilians.
 * Non-state actor. (See state terrorism instead.)
 * Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
 * Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria. Self-identification as a "terrorist" is not required; see terrorism for a list of alternative terms, with both positive and negative connotations.

See also: List of terrorists


 * I'm happy with the proposed text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tx, Beland, seems like the update that was needed - I move it to the category page. --Francis Schonken 09:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yay! -- Beland 07:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi Beland! Well, I agree it is quite unusual to protect talk pages, but it was done so that the active editors could have a bit of breathing space. Now that the page is unprotected, let's leave it that way. At least we can say that we had a blissful 2 days of relaxing. --HappyCamper 02:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that the suggested five-day protection period for the cat page is over I have unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony :-) --HappyCamper 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Membership in a known terrorist group
Is merely being a member of a known terrorist group a ground for belonging to this group? Shawnc 12:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, unless they were convicted for it. Mirror Vax 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you mean by "convicted for it", convicted for being a member of organisation designated as "terrorist" or convicted for committing terrorist acts? If the latter, then it seems quite a few people need to be removed and maybe some even added. --Magabund 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete
See Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. Per Wikipedia policy, we were supposed to avoid use of the word terrorist without qualifiers such as "considered by [party] to be..." The existence of this article basically creates a list of individuals considered by Wikipedia to be terrorists, which clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia policy concerning the word. This article should be deleted. Aiden 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Words to avoid is a guideline not policy. There is a difference. --Syrthiss 13:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this category. As it says on the "Terrorism" page, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's inherently not NPOV. 24.59.110.228 08:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CfD no consensus and relinking the history of the discussions
Archive of discussion votes on cfd (updated with this one): Categories for deletion/Terrorists

Systematic bias
I notice that a wide range of Arabs are included here, but Baruch Goldstein (responsible for the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, listed as a "Terrorist incident") and Yitzhak Shamir (involved in the assassination of the civilian Folke Bernadotte) are not, and so on.

Clearly we should apply WP:WTA fairly. The CFD failure notwithstanding, I propose simply removing all entries from this category one by one, citing WP:WTA for each one. &mdash;Ashley Y 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are proposing to override an official procedure on the basis of a mere guideline. In my opinion the appropriate response to such deliberate disruption would be to block your account. Piccadilly 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he would be proposing to look at each article individually in line with WP:WTA and WP:NPOV - which is what really is in question here. The CFD's just look at the category itself rather than the article. If the CFD fails, I would do this anyway as the articles themselves would have to contain evidence that the person self defines as a terrorist (so far I have found 1 person who self defines as a terrorist). Trying to keep wikipedia neutral is not disruption - threatening to block for enacting out policies is.-Localzuk(talk) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2007 continuation of discussion
The two potential Israeli terrorists are actually not terrorists and I'll explain why, Baruch Goldstein went on a hate filled rampage and Yitzhak Shamir was doing what he did in the name of the Israeli state. If Yasser Arafat were on this list I'd say Shamir should be included. Anynobody 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

October/November 2006 deletion discussions
This decision was then overturned at deletion review and sent back to CFD.

For a (hopefully complete) list of previous deletion debates see Categories for deletion/Terrorists. the wub "?!"  12:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective
For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective

SAR23 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are assassins terrorists?
As Talk:Thenmuli Rajaratnam shows, there exists considerable overlap between the terms. Are all assasins automatically terrorists, or do we draw a line? Where? &mdash; Sebastian 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC invitation
I invite everyone interested to take part in an RfC regarding the appropriate use of this category for two specific articles, Michael O'Dwyer and Reginald Dyer. My hope is that it will also help to set the more definite guidelines for the category in general. -- int19h 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who doesn't belong?
I noticed this tag on the category page:

Who are the disputed people in this list? Lets discuss any disputes so that the tag can be removed. Anynobody 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the one who added the tag. The two disputed persons are Reginald Dyer and Michael O'Dwyer. There are open RfCs to remove Category:Terrorists from the articles on them: for Reginald Dyer, for Michael O'Dwyer - I invite everyone to aid in resolving this issue there. -- int19h 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Aili Jõgi
I started provoked an edit war at Aili Jõgi. In todays Britain or the U.S. this person would no doubt be considered a terrorist. Our Estonian friends want to categorize her only as a victim of Soviet repressions. -- Petri Krohn 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In todays Britain or the U.S. Georg Elser would be also considered terrorist. Petri Krohn's opinion that 1946 Stalin's USSR is somehow comparable to modern day UK or USA is probably main reason why he somehow manages to get into conflicts with Estonian editors. Aili Jõgi was 14 year old girl who blew up Soviet monument for "liberation" of Tallinn at 1946, then Stalin's repressions were in full strenght and also active resistance existed.--Staberinde 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never compared Stalin's USSR to modern day UK or USA, nor implied a similarity. I also agree with you on Georg Elser. The point I want to make is, that we must have some category that can include both Aili Jõgi and Palestinian suicide bombers (some of them girls not much older than 14). If it is not possible to inlude a biography of living person in category:Terrorists, then the category must be renamed to something less derogatory. -- Petri Krohn 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have great respect for all of these people; if I added the Category:Terrorists, it certainly was not meant to be derogatory. -- Petri Krohn 13:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this category is in any way applicable to the article on her, since she did not target civilians, or, indeed, any people at all. Blowing up a monument is, at best, vandalism, but certainly not terrorism. -- int19h 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the act itself would be considered terrorism, and that she there by could be called a "terrorist", without it beeing POV. It is not about what is right or wrong, it is what it is. Bronks 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One alternative could be to use Category:Terrorism in Estonia. Bronks 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As several editors have pointed out, she did not target any civilians or any people at all. Category category:Estonian anti-communists is accurate, that if she was "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" should be decided by reader. Category:Terrorism in Estonia is seems to be quite pointless as it currently includes 0 articles. Adding one disputable case would not make it much better.--Staberinde 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The classical definition of 'terrorist' involves, well, creating terror. Explosives may be used a tool, but it's not explosives as such that make the terrorist; it's the way they get used. In case of Miss Jõgi, it needs to be pointed out that her deed happened in the night, without anybody who would potentially become terrorised of the explosion, or possibly injured by it, in proximity, and that was intentional. Her intent was to remove the monument, not to cause terror in seeking of political gains. Thus she does not satisfy the definition of terrorist. Finally, the Russian categorisation of people like her of the time was 'bandits'. Digwuren 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidently her intention was not to only to destroy the monument but also to cause terror. A direct quote: "It was wooden. We could have just doused it with gasoline and set fire to it, but we wanted it to go with a bang". -- Petri Krohn 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're reading a lot into the question of why they wanted it to go with a bang.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Contrary to Petri Krohn's assertion above, the quotation is not "direct"; it is a translation.  Reading of the original reveals an intent to ritualise the demolition, 'bang' being an important symbol in the post-war culture, not an intent to scare people, which is a necessary component of terrorist behaviour. Digwuren 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason they did it in the dark night was not to make sure that nobody "would potentially become terrorised of the explosion", but becouse no one shoulde see them. (Of curse!) Also, it was not just to "remove the monument", it was indeed for "seeking of political gains": they wanted to show the Russians that they were not welcomed. The act is still an act of terrorism, it shows that they have weapons: bombs, and are using them against the Soviets. Bronks
 * Still, no non-combatants were targeted, no people at all were targeted. People for some reason like to label everything they do not like as terrorists these days. It was more like vandalism with some political motivation. Some parallels with terrorism can be drawn but those are clearly too weak for "category:terrorist".--Staberinde 09:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By espionage history standards, her deed could also be classified as sabotage. Digwuren 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegation vs. conviction?
There are a lot of people in this group "alleged to" have been terrorists. I'm guessing the whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to wikipedia? - TheMightyQuill 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoid self-reference in terrorist definition
A search currently shows 35 categories containing:
 * (see Category:Terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" used for wikipedia categorization)

Per Self-references to avoid, the reference to Wikipedia should be removed. I have not been involved in the terrorist definition discussion but suggest to simply remove the word "wikipedia" so it becomes:
 * (see Category:Terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" used for categorization)

PrimeHunter (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have created Terrorist definition and added it to the 35 categories that were in the search. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved that category to Terrorist category definition, indicating that we're working in the framework of category definitions (per Categorisation of people, not in the sense of a dictionary definition);
 * I moved the content of the category definition of this "parent" category to the template (with minor updates to that text, mainly leaving out a link to an apparently non-existing category on state terrorism), and then used the same template here on the parent category. This ensures we use the same definition everywhere, and is even better in the WP:ASR sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) There is also this template: Terrorism category definition, and it produces this:

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the collapsible format an improvement.

Further, the body of the template's text starting with "This category's scope includes individuals, incidents, and organizations..." makes it inappropriate for category:terrorists.

Changing to that template (and btw omitting the SCD template) has zero appeal to me. Maybe if someone would explain what the intended appeal in the change is, that would help. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the templates. I see your point though about the confusion concerning the scope. Maybe the text of SCD could be incorporated in the main templates. Also maybe the 2 main templates could be combined by rewording it. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

...and we could change it's colour. Or add a flower or something more decorative. But that's all besides the question. The question was why (...would we do any of this). I see no improvement. Neither do I even see an attempt of someone trying to explain why this would be an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I didn't create the templates. Because the names of Terrorist category definition and Terrorism category definition are so similar though, many people will confuse the two. The text is very similar. The template with the color background looks much better though, so many people will gravitate towards its use. The other template ends up looking like text someone added to the top of a particular category page, and so many people will not even notice that it actually is a template and can be added to category pages. Most people will not know that the template is a guideline for many categories.


 * I agree that the default setting of the template should be that it is open and not closed. A simple table without show/hide links would be fine in my opinion. There should be a border around the table though, and there should be a pastel background color so that people pay attention to its categorization guidelines when categorizing stuff in that particular category.


 * For all these reasons then it makes more sense to me to have just one template for all categories with either "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the name. The template will need to more carefully worded though. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the distinction, discarding it resumes to a defense of stupidity.

Terrorist category definition is carefully worded. Terrorism category definition wasn't when it was created without apparent discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we copy the latest discussion to Template talk:Terrorism category definition? --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. I'd move it there with a pointer from here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I copied the latest discussion over. I left the discussion here too, because it may be a little hard for some people reading it there to understand some of the context of the discussion unless they come here. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"See also" links
Concerning this diff: with the edit summary "please propose on talk before implementing", please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

I added these links:

See also:
 * Category:Terrorism by genre
 * Category:Terrorism by country

They aren't essential "see also" links, but they help people find what they are looking for in specific countries, and they help them cross over from the "Terrorists" categories to the "Terrorism" categories. People do not always know how to go up and down the category trees. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm neither pro nor contra including cat see also's in categories in general. As for the terrorists category: using a discussion from another not directly related project talk page as a justification is quite missing the point: changes to this category page are discussed on this talk page or other appropriate categorisation-related venues or the like, not decided in the Israel Palestine Collaboration project (which seems a commendable project but doesn't own the content of this category page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I thought maybe the objection was to those type of links in general, so I was pointing out some of the related discussion. But you are right that if someone objects to specific "see also" links on a specific category page, then the discussion needs to occur there. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Catrel" and "Cat see also" link to related Categories, not to related articles. Please stop improperly inserting article "See also" sections into categories. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "see also" links I added were to categories.
 * See this diff:
 * Please return the links. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See alsos in Categories don't have "See also" headers, nor are they listed line by line with bullet points. If you must add them, and refuse to use the helpful templates, then please use the standard format. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing novel about "see also" links. See
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22
 * "See also" links are in several formats. "See also" is sometimes bold and sometimes not. It is never a header.
 * Nearly all the "see also" links you removed from around 20 categories consisted solely of a few related category links. This is extremely common in categories. Most people don't use the templates. You did not even know about the templates until I told you of them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are all categories that have "See alsos" to other categories, not to articles, as you inserted. Show examples of Categories with "See also" sections that link to articles, formatted as a standard article "See also" section. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles use headers. Categories don't put "see also" in headers.
 * ==See also==
 * Categories commonly use the 2 words "See also" followed by the category links in a horizontal line or in a vertical list. As I said, it is infrequent to see an article link in a "see also" list. Article links such as definitions of terrorism sometimes occur in intro paragraphs explaining inclusion rules for a category or in templates such as Terrorism category definition or Terrorist category definition. You are the first person I have seen to be so disturbed by the occasional article link in a "see also" list. All you had to do was remove the article links and keep the category links. But you removed the category links from around 20 categories, most of which had no article links. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You requested that we avoid duplicate talk page discussions, Jayjg. In order to avoid duplication on multiple talk pages please see the links to many examples of "see also" links in various vertical list formats at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
 * People can see the preceding discussion here:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration --Timeshifter (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism category definition
Additional input is requested at Template talk:Terrorism category definition. The discussion there concerns these 2 category templates:
 * Terrorism category definition
 * Terrorist category definition --Timeshifter (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)