Talk:Terrorists seize 50 in Iraq

Ealturner 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (Sorry - this was my comment)

Gunmen - what does this mean? It's a rather empty term. Wikistyle guide says, among other things http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Style_guide#Headlines

Tell the most important and unique thing Make them unique and specific Write in a neutral point of view

What information does the word "Gunmen seize 50 in Iraq" convey? Men who had guns took 50 people. Just any men with guns? Do we assume from the headline all men who have guns are likely to kidnap or take to execute 50 people they can round up in a market? I think gunmen might be a better term to describe criminals who hold up a bank (if they had guns). We need another word to describe armed men who commit atrocities on civilians. By way of the French, the English language has that word.

Note that as a journalist who seeks a NPOV I want to use the right word, not a political word or a vacuous meaningless substitute for the correct word because some people don't like the correct word for political reasons.

Terrorist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using threats and violence against civilians for political or ideological purposes. In an extended use, assassination of politicians and military personnel is also called "terrorism." Examples: Russian terrorists assassinated the Tsar and various government officials, Israeli terrorists targeted the British military. These are better described as forms of warfare by partisans, freedom-fighters, or insurgents.

This is clearly happening in this case, people with weapons took unarmed civilians against their will. This is terrorism. The people who took those people are terrorists. The objective journalist calls the people with the guns what they are according to the words the English language has available.

Censoring the right word is as biased as using an incorrect word for political reasons. For example, referring to gunmen who attack coalition military with stated aim to remove US forces from Iraq and to reestablish Sunni rule, at least over some part of Iraq, as terrorists is clearly incorrect. The correct word for these people would be insurgents.

Generally a blanket rule to use a word (eg. fox news "terrorist") or censor a word (eg. BBC news "terrorist") leads to vacuous headlines and/or bias.

As wikinewsies I think the correct word needs to be decided on a case to case basis if we are to succeed in our mission to provide news from a NPOV.

Use of term "Terrorism"
As you might guess I'm one of these people who is leery of the term terrorist. The reason being not that I don't believe terrorists exist, but that - as you are attempting to do above - you establish a clear definition for your usage of the term. Where you would run into problems is if the article was "terrorist this...terrorist that..." and so, instead a little variety is needed in the vocabulary.

The criteria I believe that can be applied to establish use of the term here (this article, not wikinews in general) are that civilians were targetted, and there is nothing to indicate that it is "resistance"/"insurgents" targetting collaborators.

If you poke through the history of wikinews you'll see people who'd go to extremes to misuse the term, leading to the reluctance to use it. So, whilst it may seem like a chore, I'd suggest you put a "use of the term terrorism" section on any article where you use it, this may help preempt disputes over it. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that Category:Terrorism was deleted because the word can never be used neutrally - all groups, even those that target civilians, deny being terrorists, and the definition of terrorism certainly is not clear and unambiguous. If we allow these gunmen to be called terrorists, then sooner-or-later a contributor will come along and demand that we refer to US forces as terrorist. It's better to not use the word at all. I oppose the use of the word "terrorist" in this article, or any article, unless it is atributed or quoted. - Borofkin 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC) The right word at the right time to get across the right meaning is the aim.

If we all did that things would be clearer. The argument others misuse a term is no reason to censor a term - all the more reason to use it CORRECTLY so the meaning of the term doesn't change.

I'm more than happy once it is established they are terrorists to then use weaker terms. Big and little hammers can both smack in the nail. The biggest hammer should be in the title.

I've also know of people going to extremes NOT to use certain words - read/listen to BBC product. Not using words for political reasons is as biased as using words for political reasons.

I'm of the opinion we should get back to using words for their actual objective, publically available meaning for a change!

Politicians, News companies - they shoudn't interfere with our work. Our definitions come from the majority/consensus. This is the wiki ethos. We get our definitions from dictionaries and wikipedia. They define our terms - nobody else!

I'm afraid "use of terrorism" note would politicise the word when it wasn't used in a political sense. Words are words. They have definitions. Use words according to their definitions and there won't be any argument.


 * I agree with Borofkin. He said what I was thinking. so other than agreeing, i have no opinion otherwise. Jason Safoutin 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

>>I oppose the use of the word "terrorist" in this article, or any article, unless it is atributed or quoted. - Borofkin 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)<<

I could not DISAGREE more or be more HORRIFIED that someone would propose censorship for wikinews. This is clearly NOT the wikipedia ethos.
 * What I am proposing is that we only use terms which are neutral. Please explain how this is "censorship"? - Borofkin 00:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Your proposal never to use one explanatory term in favour of another is censorship.

The right word should be used. Wikinews isn't the BBC. It isn't CNN. It's not Foxnews. It's not Al Jazarea either. It has its own ethos.

Using subsitute words to the one we really mean is not being honest, it's not being neutral. Wikinews readers expect a group effort to be smarter, to achieve MORE than is possible than at a regular news station with limited staff.

It might be harder work using the right word all the time and to decide on a case by case basis. We might say things different to other news outputs. But, that's the point! It's necessary if we are to fulfil the mission to always be neutral.

We can and should achieve more neutrality here than any other news station. Censorship must not be mistaken for neutrality.

I've seen no serious objections to the accuracy of the word terrorist as it pertains to this article.
 * I do and for reasons Borofkin already stated. That would mean every killer in prisons are terrorists...a boy taking a toy from another boy a beating him up is terrorism then...heck me yelling F you to a person walking down the street could evben be terrorism. Point is anyone any any crime could be listed as terrorism. That is not neutral. I rarely use the word terrorist and when I do its is only in specific quotes. that are attributed to a name. Jason Safoutin 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) No it doesn't. The meaning of a word applies and is decided in the case it is used.

That's a nice little theory you have there but it is irrelevant to journalism. We are a conduit for information - we don't decide how to filter it, we give it as it is. Dictionaries and wikipedia - publically agreed on definitions - are our reference books.
 * Did you not just say we are not BBC and CNN etc? they lable all these gunmen as terrorists...we do not follow their lead and cite their POV...after all its BBC and CNN etc that are calling them terrorists...not an *one* person. Jason Safoutin 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner, all you are saying is that you think it is the right word. Not everyone agrees. The gunmen certainly wouldn't agree. Those who support violent opposition to the Iraqi governmenet certainly wouldn't agree. Neutral point of view is not about being right, it is about being neutral. WN:NPOV states: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Ask yourself, would both opponents and supporters of these gunmen agree that the word "terrorist" should be used to describe them? - Borofkin 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Borofkin, we look in the dictionary and find the definition and match it to the case. That's neutral.

If your idea of neutrality is not using a word then I'm sorry that is not wikipedia ethos. To not use the correct word is a political decision as much as to use an incorrect word for political reasons.

Sorry I fear we are in total disagreement on this.


 * You seem to be suggesting that a definition is "neutral" (in the Wikinews sense of the word) because it appears in a dictionary. This is clearly not the case. The relavent Wikinews policy is WN:NPOV, which talks about NPOV as a balance between different points of view, rather than one single point-of-view called "neutrality". The Wikipedia article Definition of terrorism discusses at length the problem with the term. It states: "Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used." Which definition should we use? How can Wikinews possibly define the term when the all the governments and academics in the world haven't been able to agree on a definition? - Borofkin 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) >>The gunmen certainly wouldn't agree.<<

Borofkin, are you party to information?

Ealturner 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) >>How can Wikinews possibly define the term when the all the governments and academics in the world haven't been able to agree on a definition?<<

That a fact or your POV?

>>Which definition should we use?<< The people who read our articles are smart enough to have read a page with wikinews linked, visited wikipedia or found it by Google - they should know how to use a dictionary and work it out.

You seem to be throwing your hands up and want to bin a word because it's covered in shit. Sorry I think your POV is getting in the way of your neutrality. I think a quality of a journalist is being able to see through the shit.
 * Well now that you have been informed of WN:NPOV I am also going to ask that you read WN:E and WN:NOT (WN:NOT a theatre of war, which you are creating, by making accusations aginst contributers. please review these policies.

This is a community. You are not a single entity on this Wiki and please do not treat other users like they do not exist. Jason Safoutin 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue that should probably be discussed by the wider community. I've flagged this page for community attention, and I've also started a discussion at Water cooler/policy. - Borofkin 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) >>How can Wikinews possibly define the term when the all the governments and academics in the world haven't been able to agree on a definition?<<

That a fact or your POV?

>>Which definition should we use?<< The people who read our articles are smart enough to have read a page with wikinews linked, visited wikipedia or found it by Google - they should know how to use a dictionary and work it out.

You seem to be throwing your hands up and want to bin a word because it's covered in shit. Sorry I think your POV is getting in the way of your neutrality. I think a quality of a journalist is being able to see through the shit.
 * Well now that you have been informed of WN:NPOV I am also going to ask that you read WN:E and WN:NOT (WN:NOT a theatre of war, which you are creating, by making accusations aginst contributers. please review these policies.

This is a community. You are not a single entity on this Wiki and please do not treat other users like they do not exist. Jason Safoutin 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Jason Safoutin, I'm sorry that you feel insulted by something that I have said or not said and that you think I've created a "theatre of war". This is a strongly discussed argument with strong views on boths sides. Censorship brings out the fighter in me. I'm sure you have equally strong visceral reactions to what you feel is wrong.

I'm willing to return to the discussion.

>>The relavent Wikinews policy is WN:NPOV, which talks about NPOV as a balance between different points of view, rather than one single point-of-view called "neutrality".<<

Terrorist is a descriptive word based on facts which are in the news story. As I have said, it is not a politically charged word - the charge is brought to it by those with POV.

I maintain vigourously terrorist is the right word. No other more accurate word has been put forward, nor has anyone denied terrorist fits the definition for the article.

This discussion seems politically charged far beyond what is necessary for a simple article. You don't know my politics - save your battles for another time, please.


 * I don't it fits the the definition of this aticle. Jason Safoutin 01:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 02:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Are you going to give reasons? How can we discuss things if you're not going to play fair and explain your motivations?

My reasons why terrorist is correct word
 * attack, which we know was a forced capture, had a civilian target

Definition: Terrorism refers to a strategy of using threats and violence against civilians for political or ideological purposes.


 * attack had political/ideological purpose. "Men with guns" aren't know to go rounding up civilians in market places and taking them away. Those with political point to make are.

IMO this is not an "ethnic attack" - the facts are not in, cleansing does not appear to be motivation. Rather the exercise seems to be well organised and to some extent propaganda.

Terrorism.


 * Your opinion? you mean your POV. I stated my reasons...and tell me...who or what group is responsible for this? Jason Safoutin 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrorism on the publically available definition of the word. If the group responsible publically admitted the act we would mention the name of that group instead of the word terrorist.


 * Sorry, you did not make a convincing case why the word terrorist is not accurate in this case. I will vigourously oppose arbitrary censorship of words at wikinews as that is anethema to my reading of the wiki ethos Ealturner 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by the "Wiki ethos". Any justification for the use of the word "terrorism" should be in reference to WN:NPOV. - Borofkin 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the high standards wikinews strives for in addition to giving the facts from a neutral point of view. Please highlight which part of the page you linked censors the word "terrorism." Then bear in mind the page you linked can be edited at anytime. I am almost certain wikinews ethos is not striving to be Pravada of Soviet era fame. Ealturner 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already done this. WN:NPOV states: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Supporters of the gunmen would reject the suggestion that they were terrorists, therefore to describe them as terrorists in an article is a violation of this policy. - Borofkin 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you party to information? That is your POV, unless you have a quote from those men with guns saying "we're not terrorists." You are jumping to a conclusion that they think in a certain way. Why do that when all one needs to do is look in a dictionary. You don't need to make a guess at what people think. Just look in a publically available information source.


 * We need to compromise here or no articles will ever be published. Censorship is not an option. Terrorism is a word. When the case fits it shall be used. That is the reasonable position. Ealturner 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting that these gunmen may self-identify as terrorists? I find it extremely unlikely. I don't know of any person or organisation who has called themselves terrorist. - Borofkin 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is thinking. That is where bias comes in. You mustn't think, just tell the facts and use words according to their definitions. That's news. I'm not the greatest writer but that's news I'd strive for. If you can find me that quote where those men with guns clain not to be terrorists or use terrorist tactics, then I will agree it is a matter of POV and we should find another word. Currently such quote from those men with guns is not available; this news is a matter of description, and therefore we refer to the dictionary for our terms. Republishing article. Ealturner 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You talk about the definition of terrorism as though it is not in dispute. A disputed term can never be considered NPOV. Using your rational (that the gunmen must have specifically rejected the label of "terrorist"), I could argue that the next time US soldiers kill civilians at a checkpoint we should call them "terrorists", unless they specifically state that they don't consider themselves to be terrorists. - Borofkin 03:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The killing of civilians who may or may not be in any way associated with the people or ideologies the terrorists are fighting against with the intent of causing fear, panic, or communal tension in order to achieve a goal which is itself disputable is termed terrorism. Terrorism is often masked by the terrorists as a struggle for freedom even though peaceful methods can also be used to achieve this goal. Terrorists are most often Muslims who claim their acts are justifiable by the Quaraan despite learned imams clearly stating that even in a jihad, women, children and civilians should not be killed. As such, the term jihadi, or holy-warrior cannot be applied to these people since their attacks kil children, women and civilians who do not fall into the category of people the terrorists term as oppressors. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] (Talk) 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an objective publically available definition for terrorism. To not use a word when the word fits is biased - censorship. I understand what you are saying, that today's terrorists in the history books will be called "freedom fighters" but that doesn't mean those freedom fighters didn't use terrorist tactics. Israelis who bombed British out of Israel admitted they choose terrorism as a deliberate strategy. It's not unclear to me such people would not call themselves terrorists on the publically available definition of the term. The furore you are stirring up over the term terrorism is itself evidence of POV - just look in the dictionary, no POV there. There is no reason whatever to object to the term as used in this article. Given the full and logical reasoning I have willingly made I am not happy that a compromise has yet been reached that does not require censorship. Ealturner 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, still no one has siad who or what group is responsible. Jason Safoutin 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who do terrorist acts are by definition terrorists. I stand by the reasoning I have argued the entirity of this discussion: it is the correct term in this case. Ealturner 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ealturner, you have somewhat right but as said earlier the word 'terrorist' is a pov problem. I like to call US and Israel among a few countries terroriststates, who commit acts of state terrorism. And the diferens between 'terrorism' and repression might not be so big. For not get stuck in a very long, and quite unconstuctive discussion I think its better you accept that 'terrorist' is a disputed word and dont use it if not attributed to someone. Just listen to Bush talking about 'terroristleader' Abu Musab al-Zarqawi been killed. I call Bush a worser 'terroristleader'. But that is my pov whish many disagrea with and I dont titulate him that in articles. international 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * International - stick to the dictionary there is no problem, whatsoever. The only issue is in your imaginations as I suspect that your own POVs are getting in the way of objectivity here and that your objections are politically motivated. I evidence this claim by your statement "I like to call US and Israel among a few countries terroriststates." Clearly you have a political bias which is motivating your objection. For me this excludes you from the debate as censoring terrorist would be biased.


 * I have simply asked for a word to be used according to its publically available definition. This is not radical, this is correct, honest, open journalism. This journalism can be double-checked by parties with no knowledge of the news subject. Not everyone follows politics - not everyone has your POV toward the word terrorist. We should use the objective publically available definition above all others. I have been quite patient outlining my reasons when I have no personal agenda other than to do good, accurate journalism. I feel my attempt to do this is being hindered. Let's get an agreement. Ealturner 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not and will not agree to the use of the word terrorism in this article. The word was not said by anyone, it cannot be attributed to anyone, there is no quote and still no one has said who or what group is responsible for this. And Again (I am growing tired of repeating myself) there are over 100 definitions for terrorist. It is impossible to use only one of those definitions. Jason Safoutin 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner, I think that 'gunmen' is as good as 'terrorists' in this article. I cant see anywere any political claims from the kidnappers and they might be out for money, bandits. Though I agree with other users, that even might have the opposit political pov than me in this question, that the word 'terrorist' is a disputed word. May I speculat its because its been used together with political agenda from some (not wikinewsies to my knowledge), and the lexical mening have been tainted. So my pov in this is not politically based. It is that i fear a long and unconstructive discussion that I hardly can see a solution on. international


 * International - thank you for your views, I appreciate your passion for news. However I believe you are wrong. Gunmen is a weak term that conveys less meaning than the word terrorist. Terrorist is the correct word - this much appears to be agreed. It appears you don't want that word to be used. Censorship is intolerable and displays political bias.  Ealturner 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont agree quite simple and its not political motivated. I try to answer you arguments below. international 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "I try to answer you arguments below." This is not a game. This is not a seminar and I'm not a professor. You are taking a lot of my time up with a politically motivated objection to a word that the good journalist refers to dictionary for guide of usage. I am not amused. Ealturner 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont like to get assumed motivations thrown in my face. Then I dont spend any more time on this. international 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get an agreement
Ealturner 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Censorship is intolerable. Dictionaries are produced for a reason - to resolve disputes in word meaning and to provide a landmark objective, meaning for a word independent of how it may be used.

Borofkin advocates the word terrorism should not be used unless someone else has been reported to have said it:

"I oppose the use of the word "terrorist" in this article, or any article, unless it is atributed or quoted." [Borofkin - see earlier in this discussion]

I disagree wholly on any form of censorship of the journalist as there are times when terrorist or terrorism is the most accurate word. For the writer to deliberately not use terrorism in favour of a weaker term would be dishonest and misleading to the reader.

On the contrary, I think terrorism may be used on its definition as found in dictionaries; definitions which are consistent as to main usage - violence intended to achieve political goals, especially that which is directed to civilian targets.

Some definitions

dictionary.com: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Merriam-Webster: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion http://dictionary.cambridge.org/: (threats of) violent action for political purposes

Encarta: political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Terrorism : 1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda. 2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives. 3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the popuation of a state.

Webster 1913: he act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. Jefferson. 2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals

American Heritage: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I propose that unless those who have committed the alleged terrorist act have said their action was not terrorism, and are sourced as saying such, then their act if it best fits the definition of terrorism is terrorism and they are terrorists. The onus must be on those commiting each violent act to say they're not terrorists as we the journalist cannot assume they don't want to be known as terrorists or to use terrorist tactics. If those that initially fit the definition of terrorists provide a reason why they're not terrorists, then the rule of attributed and quoted use only of the word terrorist may apply. Ealturner 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Four users object to the use of the word terrorist in this article, and I continue my objection. Jason Safoutin 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, the use of the term terrorist has been fully justified here on the talk page, and my concern that it be bludgeoned into people hasn't come to be, it is used - once - which is appropriate. Our Indian friend, PVJ agrees, so that's at least three on the side of the term being used.  --Brian McNeil / talk 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It has not been justified. No one person or group has claimed responsibility. No one has attibuted or said these are terrorists. And until then it is a total POV. I will say this once more: if you want to use terrorist then some can say Bush is one or Israel or Iran or ANYONE and any nation. The fact is that they are GUNMEN. Point to a sources that says who is responsible or what group. Do we call murderes terrorists? Do we call Saddam a terrorist? The fact that there is opposition and support for the use means that the tearm itself is not a neutral term. Therefore I am still opposed to the use of it. Jason Safoutin 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

>> Four users object to the use of the word terrorist in this article, and I continue my objection. << Objection in itself is not sufficient to prove NPOV. If it the decision was based simply on a matter of numbers forget discussion, I can rustle up 2 dozen people, if not more, who would post here to support my view and get this passed. I'm not going to, and I believe you wouldn't do this either, because I'm a believer that reasoned debate can sort out differences. I believe, of the objectors here, Borofkin has the most nuanced stance - however his position still censors the journalist intolerably. My proposal is really not far off Borofkin's - certainly not as far off as some of the heat I'm getting might suggest. If you'd take time to consider my logical proposal I'd thank you for your effort. No grudges held. The point has gotten across to me that terrorism isn't a word that can be thrown around without a lot of thought, which is the way it should be. Ealturner 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten the community with POV pushing and a mass task force of meatpuppets. I am no longer going to collaborate with you as I believe you cannot and refuse to understand and follow WN:NPOV, WN:E, and WN:NOT. These are policies. I have to abide by them and so do you. Jason Safoutin 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm? Are you serious? I'm sorry you feel that way and feel the need to hide behind a lot of links to look authoritative and veteran over me. I am indeed a new contributor here and one who knows when he's not wanted. I was a new contributor who welcomed your interest and passion and your experience; but uncharitable use of my words and behaviour toward me is not at all welcome. I wonder whether I should help out here at all. It is not the friendly, intelligent, place for enthusiastic journalist without political agendas I thought it was. Ealturner 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we can get back to the issue. I think there has yet to be a good case made why we can't use the word terrorism in this case. I'm not pushing for terrorist in all cases. Don't worry I'm not that kind of person. I just want to be accurate. Terrorist is accurate. Republishing. Ealturner 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 82.141.50.12 strikes again. Moves it to develop; gives no reason. I consider this disruptive and am republishing. Ealturner 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)