File talk:Hamas members attacking civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, Israel (October 2023).webm

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Terrorists" is not neutral[edit]

"Terrorists" is not neutral, and removing the word would not change the meaning.

The NPOV policy says, "Neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible", and it very much is possible here.

@TommyG, you denied my rename request, because you concluded that "there's little doubt that this act falls within the definition of Terrorism".

I don't believe that Stupid fat idiot.jpg would be neutral if there's "little doubt" that the image's subject is stupid, fat, and an idiot.

"Hamas members..." is enough and neutral.

Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson: "Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys." Why is it Commons' job to do that?


This is also regarding the video: File:President Biden Delivers Remarks On The Terrorist Attacks in Israel.webm, which was also denied the move to a more neutral name. FunLater (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is neutral to describe a spade, as a spade; we don't need to refer to it as an earth moving implement to be neutral. And the BBC has a somewhat tarnished reputation of late, so I wouldn't be holding them up as any sort of standard on neutrality; their coverage of many topics is far from neutral. WCMemail 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Stupid fat idiot.jpg would not be neutral, and we do have to refer to them as a person.
Hamas, like the Israeli military, is a military organization that committed war crimes, and is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, Egypt, Syria, and Brazil. (citation on its Wikipedia page) We should not take sides, period.
Additionally, the word terrorist is biased enough that Wikipedia's policy says that it should never be used without in-text attribution: MOS:TERRORIST. FunLater (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The file File:President Biden... I don't see why there's anything to discuss about it. It is the title the White House has given to the press briefing. Why would we on Wikimedia Commons override the determination of the US government?
With regards to the file who's talk page we are on, terrorism is according to en:wp

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel).

A person who commits terrorism, is a terrorist, ie. someone who indiscriminately shoots and kills civilian non-combatants like what is clearly shown in the video. Why is this even a question? NOT calling it terrorism would in my opinion be extremely biased, as it shows a bias towards defending the action of the Hamas, when killing civilians as somehow justified militarily. TommyG (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not our job to add unnecessary and non-neutral descriptors to a title because we determined them to be valid, and we deem all other opinions wrong. Terrorism, the word, is biased, and it should be removed, the same way all mentions of terrorism without in-text attribution are currently removed from the Wikipedia page.
And no, not adding unnecessary descriptors is NOT making a statement, the same way not adding "Big-nosed" to a picture of a person who has a big nose according to Wikipedia's definition of a big nose is not making a statement. Commons is not the place for biased titles or adding our own interpretation.
And regarding the government video, its title is biased and should be changed. FunLater (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid I still disagree with you, but I am obviously not the gatekeeper of Wikimedia Commons and I welcome the opinion of others. I'm not sure how much attention the discussion page of a couple of files will get, so you might want to raise the issue on the Village pump if you want to get some more attention. As it is, in my opinion renaming is not justified under any of the relevant criterions, and en:wp policy does not apply to Wikimedia Commons, so it would be interesting to get some feedback from other Commons contributors on documented or undocumented precedents. TommyG (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already linked to this page on the talk page of the main English Wikipedia article that uses this video, which has thousands of page views, but raising the issue in the village pump seems like a good idea too. Thank you. FunLater (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC has often referred to the Irish separatist movement as terrorism, so the statement, 'It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn,' may not be relevant. Multiple times, the BBC has also accused Hindus of 'saffron terror.' The BBC is often seen as an example of radical left-leaning media. However, it's important to note that the BBC does not represent the entire human race, so please refrain from quoting BBC reports as the sole source of information.
Regardless of your stance on the definition of terrorism, it's worth mentioning that Hamas has been labeled as terrorists by most non-Muslim nations and numerous reliable sources, except for more left-leaning outlets such as the BBC and Al Jazeera. However, this discussion isn't primarily about the main body of the issue but rather the title of a government video. In this case, we have video evidence that depicts what actual 'terrorism' looks like. Removing the term 'terrorism' from the title could be seen as whitewashing. It's important to avoid censorship or removal of content simply because we disagree with it. This video provides a clear demonstration of pure, unadulterated terrorism, and it should be labeled accurately. Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources disagree, that's an opinion, and in this case, there's a biased opinion in the title. Almost no one disagrees that this is "Hamas murdering civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, Israel (October 2023)", but many disagree that Hamas is a terroristic military. Calling people terrorists simply because that's what "non-Muslim nations" assert and some (but not all) reliable sources call them is not a neutral point of view.
It's not our job to speculate or disagree with reliable sources on what is terrorism, and unless it's being attributed, controversial, one-sided opinions don't belong in titles, especially titles that millions will read.
The video shows what happened clearly. It's not our job to add written commentary on what is or isn't terrorism. FunLater (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Hamas_members_attacking_civilians_in_Kibbutz_Mefalsim,_Israel_(October_2023).webm&oldid=814548915"