Category talk:Terrorism

 

Inclusion criteria

This discussion is continued from this discussion at Village Pump.

AS it is there is no criteria for what gets included in this category. To avoid mayhem when people add and remove the category as they se fit I would like to suggest we develop some clear inclusion criteria. My suggestion would be that we only include persons and organisations that a reliable source have labelled as a terrorist organisation. // Liftarn (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Clear criteria is always good.

Scenario 1: The three biggest Iranian newspapers call Obama a terrorist. Obama images start appearing in category:terrorists. People are going to object, policy or not.

Scenario 2: The three biggest Iranian newspapers call Obama a terrorist. Obama images start appearing in category:People considered terrorist in Iran. People are going "like I care".

My suggestion: Keep category, put people in subcategories according to source of claim, be strict about sources. Paradoctor (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no clear definition for terrorism, hence there cannot be fixed criteria for this category. In this case, since calling a person or an organization "terrorist" can rightfully be regarded slanderous (just like calling a person a murderer), and since the Commons' category system may not be used to introduce controversial views, a unanimous consensus must be reached before assigning this category. BTW, I know of at least two libel cases brought to court by groups of people who were accused of committing massacres in academic papers or documentary films, so cautiousness here is not redundant at all. Just to make something clear - in Wikipedia, one can bring a citation of a person suggesting that someone is terrorist, and balance it with other views. Here, we cannot write "Category:Terrorism per XY, WZ disagrees". Currently I see Al-Qaeda, Ku Klux Clan and Kach on this category. I doubt if anyone contest the definition of them as terrorist organizations. However other organizations that are or were included in this category should not be in it. Drork (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria would be that the claim can be reliably sourced. We can even put the source in the header of the subcategory to be included or (in the case of a single file) in the description. By sourcing it to a third part we should also avoid the problem of lawsuits. Unanimous consensus would be unpractical since then a single extremist may block proper categorisation. We could have an Al-Qaeda supporter or Ku Klux Clan member or something like that stubbornly refusing to accept that their heroes are widley considered a terrorist group. // Liftarn (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source, you mean a source you bring forth and approve, while objections are automatically refuted. Drork (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source as in w:WP:RS. Objections like w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT can of-course safely be ignored. // Liftarn (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm thinking trying to match en.wiki is the way forward here. Don't mark individuals/organisations as "terrorist". Mark them as "organisations designated terrorist by [the US/the UK/Iran/whoever]". Likewise use "convicted/charged with terrorism in X". As those are factual statements, that sidesteps the definition of terrorism. Incidentally regarding the US Army/CIA: The Iranian parliament may have made a motion saying they are "terrorist", was that endorsed by the government or was the matter quietly dropped? In other words, did it become the opinion of the state of Iran or just its legislature? (And has it been reversed since?)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Organisations designated terrorist and Category:Persons designated terrorist is a way to avoid the problem. Having a category for everyone (and each combination of them) that says some other is terrorist may be difficult so I would suggest writing it in the header, i.e. "NNN is considered a terrorist organisation by...". That way we would not have the problem of people adding the category to just any organisation they don't like or removing it from organisations they like. We would perhaps still need a category for organisations/persons formerly considered to be terrorists but now has been removed. For instance Nelson Mandela was on the US list of terrorists but has now been removed. // Liftarn (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So far, the following seems consensus:

• Categorizing as "terrorist" is a no go.
• Categorizing as "terrorist according to X, verify at Z" is ok.

 Support Paradoctor (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Liftarn use Iran as a reliable source to claim US Army and CIA are terrorist organizations is just ridiculous. His edit warring needs to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with his behavior, please take it to COM:AN/U, we're trying to have a discussion about handling a problematic category here.

Liftarn hasn't claimed anything about US Army or CIA that I've seen. The idea is to say "Soandso claimed that the CIA is a terrorist organization", which is an entirely different beast from saying "CIA is a terrorist organization". The former is a statement about Soandso, the latter about CIA. Can you see the difference? Paradoctor (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have another proposal: At en-wp we find this list of terrorist organizations. I do not see much benefit of repeating at Commons the process which lead to this list and its criteria. We could simply put those organizations of this list into this category. This list considers currently six governments or govermental organizations and we could, as suggested by Paradoctor, represent them through corresponding categories like, for example, "Terrorist organization according to Australia". You will find, BTW, at the corresponding talk page lots of debates including a a discussion whether it is justified to include the CIA and the U.S. Army into this list as Iran designates them as terrorist organizations. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed a very good resource. However it seem to only cover currently active organisations and not historical organisations. // Liftarn (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, that is what I had in mind. And synergistic, too! We send discussions off to Wikipedia and get sourced categories in return. Wikipedia gets more contributors in an environment suited for them. Win-win. Paradoctor (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)