Jump to content

Talk:1986 Hvalur sinkings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Terrorism"?

[edit]

For the vast majority of the groups who are in a "Terrorism" category, there are a number of editors who argue that the group is not "terrorist". I've included references to several sources which use the term "terrorism" in describing the incident. I'm not aware of any neutral body who can definitively say "the 1986 incident was absolutely not terrorism". Accordingly, since this was an incident which Icelanders have publicly referred to as "terrorism", and since it is historically notable in terms of being the only act of "terrorism" in modern Icelandic history, I believe that there is an academic justification to file the article under "Terrorism in Iceland". I agree that it should be made explicitly clear that no humans were harmed in the incident, and would welcome other wikipedians to link contemporary press statements from groups praising the act, a link to an "Environmental Activism" category, etc. I'm neutral on the issue of whaling, my interest in the topic lies only in ensuring Wikipedia coverage of "extremist" groups is complete. I agree that linking Sea Shepherd directly to a terrorism category would be contentious, but I still believe that the article should be linked to Category: Terrorism in Iceland. I'm PMing you to invite you to come to this discussion page to discuss the matter further. I'm sure we can come to an agreement which presents all sides of the issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you want to do, but perhaps you need a more inclusive category for that. There are several issues here, and we may need expert input on some of them:
  1. This article mentions two people by name, and is essentially about their actions. This may make WP:BLP applicable, a non-negotiable policy that trumps almost everything else.
  2. Although Sea Shepherd was not officially behind these acts, there is clearly a strong connection. It seems reasonable that WP:BLP is applied to organisations by analogy, but I don't know if that's general practice.
  3. Adding an article to a category or not is a yes or no question. You can't do it half, and you can't add a comment. The arbitration committee has ruled on the similar case of the category Category:Pseudoscience.
  4. There is no generally accepted definition of terrorism. Governments all over the world are currently using this to label everything they can't deal with as "terrorism", to get international support in what would otherwise be a local matter. E.g. suppose I am strong opponent of paying taxes, and I make a public announcement that if HM Revenue & Customs continues to insist that I must pay taxes, then I will hack my university's web server. According to the Terrorism Act 2000 the announcement would be terrorism. This is ridiculous, and obviously we must stick to a conservative, common sense definition.
  5. Is it enough if some reliable sources call something terrorism and some others don't? I think this depends very much on the sources, how serious they are about it, and whether there is any indication that they have actually thought about it.
  6. "Eco-terrorism" is a special problem, because apparently the standard definition is such that it is no terrorism according to conservative definitions. In my opinion this word is a discursive weapon and should be avoided by Wikipedia.
--Hans Adler (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a lot of good material, particularly WP:BLP, and I agree that the issue needs to be addressed with appropriate care. I've been most careful in the article to refrain from judgement as to the actions taken by any party involved. The Terrorism in Iceland category addresses a basic question: "what acts of 'terrorism' have occurred in Iceland?" The answer is "the Icelandic press, and certain other figures, referred to one particular incident as their sole incident of modern terrorism." It's equally valid to point out that groups X, Y, and Z referred to the action as "heroic" or "justified", and to also include the article in categories involving environmentalist direct-action, etc. I feel that listing categories appropriate to both interpretations of the event is the most neutral way to go about it. I have no objections to eliminating the redirect, as it is redundant with the category, but I still maintain that the category serves an academic purpose.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) This article needs to get some sort out outside decision from uninvolved editors. I think you're stretching a bit on the "the individuals in question are being defamed as terrorists on WP". The individuals did an act (which seems a little disputed fact), Icelandic government entities declared it "terrorism", thus the category is Category:Terrorism in Iceland. The article is calling X and Y "terrorists", it's noting that the government of Iceland declared the act "terrorism". I realise that the "Terrorism" categories in general are contentious, but we don't happen to have a category labeled Category:Ideologically-motivated illegal acts in Iceland which embraces the nuances of nomenclature. If we remove the (imperfect) category, there's no link to the tree of similar destructive physical acts done for ideological reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that you don't have a category that does apply is hardly an excuse to put the article in a BLP-violating category that doesn't apply. So you created a category that doesn't actually make any sense because the only article you found for it doesn't even belong there. Tough luck. Now don't make it worse by pretending you did everything right. Hans Adler 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've posted elsewhere, I basically agree with MatthewVanitas's take on this. I don't think that the application of this category engages BLP concerns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm <sarcasm>No, of course there is no BLP concern with saying "A did B, and B is terrorism", when it isn't. No chance for a libel suit in that case.</sarcasm> Hans Adler 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm FacepalmCategories are navigational so bringing up the specter of a libel suit is ridiculous in several ways.Cptnono (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non sequitur. Hans Adler 10:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. You appear to not understand the standards here and prefer to paint other editors arguments as anything but being based on guidelines. Maybe you need to take a step back if it is overly emotionally charged for you.Cptnono (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"overly emotionally charged"? Nice personal attack from an editor with the following statistics:
I think I can be forgiven for the impression that you are somewhat attached to the topic yourself. For comparison, these are my statistics:
This does look a bit healthier, doesn't it? Especially if we also consider that I have been active at that article since April 2008 (25 months), while you have only been there since June 2009 (11 months). Hans Adler 10:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have just proven my point. You seem to care more about contributors over their contributions when it comes into conflict with the terrorist label thing. You call me a wikilawyer but don't dispute the reasoning provided. Feel free to chime in on other articles I edit if you feel they are not neutral but I am pretty happy with finding good sources and adding them.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the last two years since I created this article, it appears that Hans Adler is the only person to post with BLP concerns about the navigational categories involved. Given that I haven't seen anyone else convinced that categories violate BLP, particularly categories on an article which is not even a bio, I submit we should restore Category:Terrorism in Iceland to get this article back into the appropriate category trees. Again, if a better cat word that "terrorism" can be found, I'm down, but in the meantime it is an extensive category tree, and this event belongs on it. I'm not seeing any convincing argument for "I can find unsavoury implications about this person by playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, so it's libel". MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is under discussion at CFD here, where I've essentially said that if the category is kept the article should be restored to it. That may be a more appropriate forum for your proposal above, but I'm not sure .... Let's just hope the recent incivility does not carry over from here to there—please. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. There has been at least one (widely cited) Arbcom case that revolved around when one can apply a contentious category to an article. (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE ended in what almost amounts to a content decision on when it is OK to apply Category:Pseudoscience to an article.) Obviously it's more critical for articles about one living person than for articles on events closely tied to two; in that context we recently had a huge discussion even on whether it's OK to apply the LGBT WikiProject template to the talk page of a BLP article when the reason is just a public suspicion/accusation that the person is gay.
That my take on this is not eccentric should be obvious from WP:NPOVT#Categorization, WP:Categorization of people#General considerations ("For some 'sensitive' categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for 'sensitive' categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization."), and the recent comments at WP:BLP/N. Categories are simply not an acceptable means to push a contentious political POV. Hans Adler 08:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd make more progress if we didn't call each other's views "ridiculous" when we disagree with them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've carved off a section in the article for the "terrorism designation debate". It appears that there has been some fairly consistent voices in Canada (where Sea Shepherd is based) that insist on referring to the incident as "terrorism". I've also included Coronado's reported rebuttals to these claims. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category dispute

[edit]

It is well-established practice that badly sourced contentious claims about living people are removed from the article during dispute resolution, not just tagged with a fact tag or similar. The claim that what Coronado and Howitt did was terrorism is badly sourced. Most sources that discussed the act did not call it terrorism, although many reported, apparently as a curiosity, that some entities did.

There is already a discussion open at WP:BLP/N#1986 Hvalur sinkings – categorising an event as terrorism. Four editors who commented there are involved in this dispute: Me, Good Olfactory (who became involved in the CfD, starting right with a silly accusation of "emptying" a one-member category, demonstrating clouded perception in this case), MatthewVanitas (creator of the category) and Cptnono (longtime Sea-Shepherd-critical editor). Third-party input from sean.holyland, Wikidemon and Dusty14 was that it is not terrorism. Hans Adler 01:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the possibility of working this out would be increased if you didn't call my actions "silly" and suggest that I have "clouded perception in this case". That's not terribly nice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And although I am critical of the organization I would like you to point out any POV problems if you see them. You've been asked before to knock that behavior off.
It is not a label. It is a category. It has been called terrorism. Even by the definitions you provided at the admin's page, they caused suffering to civilians who lost their livelihood. But our opinions on it don't matter.
You also need to stop edit warringCptnono (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also made a comment at the category's talk page that should be addressed. Category talk:Terrorism in Iceland#Comment on closed deletion discussion.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the citations support that this was terrorism, it appears to be reported more as activism and demonstration. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources do and these are based in more than just Iceland. And since this is for navigation nd not labeling it seems perfectly legitimate.Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly, the ones from Canada have repeatedly referred to this as an incident or "terrorism" or one committed by a "terrorist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of where to go from here

[edit]
  • I'd like to suggest a bit of a temporary compromise, which might be able to ultimately result in resolving this in a way that would satisfy User:Hans Adler. Cptnono had what I think is a good point at Category talk:Terrorism in Iceland. Why not just put the article in the category and then nominate the category based on WP:OC#SMALL? Then we could have a normal/decent debate on the category while putting aside the issue in dispute (if only temporarily), and there is a chance it would result in "delete", which would presumably make Hans Adler happy and resolve the situation. If it doesn't result in delete—well, we're no worse off that we are now. (Of course, this would require some restraint as we'd need to leave this one article in the category for 7 days so those who participate in the discussion can take a look and give an opinion. Restraint has not exactly been the watchword of this dispute, but it's never too late to start.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you still awake Hans Alder? At least you stopped being disruptive for a few hours. Get some sleep and we'll chat about it in 24 hrs. Sound like a plan?Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My night has long been over, and I actually did get enough sleep. How about you take some sleep and then think whether it's wise to go on a campaign against BLP? Hans Adler 12:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally the plan in the next couple hours. Have you considered that it isn't a campaign against BLP or even SSCS? You somehow avoided a day block Take it and enjoy the freedom to not continue talking shit. There is no reason for us to be jerks to each other.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not calling them terrorists. Note the infobox does not have have it since that would be more of a label. We are simply using the category tree to facilitate the reader's ability to navigate the topic area. People keep on bringing up BLP and "do no harm" at ANI. There is no harm done. People have called the incident an act of terrorism and we are acknowledging it. One of the perpetrators was convicted of arson. His reputation is already shot to his detractors. We are not convincing anyone of anything nor should we be trying to do so. Hans Alder is refusing to hear it even though multiple editors have increased their understanding of the dispute and are supporting the category's inclusion on this page about the incident. It sucks that it is sspread out over several subsections but I ma seeing some consensus forming. You need to stop disregarding other editors just because you disagree Hans Alder.Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong, long-standing, project-wide consensus that while categories are intended as navigational tools, they also label. (Recently it became clear that a similar principle applies even to WikiProject tags on the talk page, but in that case the solution was to rephrase the project tag. [1]) You are not going to change this consensus by arguing for categorising an act of sabotage as terrorism that cannot reasonably be called terrorism.
As I explained twice on this page and also in at least one other place where you must have seen it, there is even an Arbcom ruling about this. It contains guidance about when it is OK to put an article in Category:Pseudoscience. One of the most notable cases of something accused as a pseudoscience is psychoanalysis, see psychoanalysis#Criticism and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Psychology. Yet Arbcom has ruled that "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized", i.e. categorised. See WP:ARBPS#Questionable science.
Note that philosophers of science are actually publishing scholarly papers trying to prove that psychoanalysis falls under the definition of pseudoscience. That's a lot more than an illegal act being called terrorism by some, in a way that is entirely consistent with mere use of the word as an invective. Hans Adler 10:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not do something similar to "Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government", such as "Category:Actions regarded as terrorism by the Icelandic government" ? –xenotalk 11:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That suggestion could work, though I still think WP:OC#SMALL would probably apply to it in the same way it would already apply. Really, I don't understand the resistance to making a compromise here as I outlined above by having a nomination of the category for deletion when it has just this article in it. Personally, in such a situation, I would vote for deletion based on WP:OC#SMALL and I think most other users who participate in CFD regularly would agree. The suggestion was not "an attempt to erode WP:BLP"—it was a suggested compromise and Hans's inability to compromise is unfortunate I think, though not particularly surprising based on his previous comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I have protected the article from editing for one week. Please take that time to resolve the category issue and its related BLP implications, so that any additional edits will be uncontested. As always, even though administrators have the technical ability to edit protected pages, they are asked to refrain from making content edits during protection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In retrospect I feel a bit silly that I didn't explicitly ask for protection. Hans Adler 15:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Groups

[edit]

Similiar groups such as the Earth Liberation front are considered to be terrorist organizations by the united states government, if the icelandic government calls seashepard's attacks terrorist actions, then there is really little to debate since those actions would legally be terrorist attacks in iceland.XavierGreen (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Rhetorics by politicians has a priori nothing to do with the legal system. Sea Shepherd is incorporated in the US and is tax-exempt there. Does that sound like a terrorist organisation? When Iceland called the two perpetrators terrorists nobody took that seriously. One of them later got a prison sentence in the US for arson (no connection to this event) and is free now. Is that how the US deal with international terrorists? Hans Adler 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the us's policy on sea shepard, im talking about iceland's. If the icelandic government describes sea shepard as a terrorist organization, than thats what they are in the eyes of the icelandic government. There are dozens of examples of organizations that some nations view as being terroristic while other nations think those organizations are completely legitimate. Icelandic policy is not US policy, you must realize that every country has different policies on every issue including terrorism dont you?XavierGreen (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond further to your nonsense. If not even the Icelandic government took its own claim that this was terrorism seriously, then there is no reason why we should. And of course just one government isn't enough. Or are we going to immediately tag everything as terrorism that the Iranian government might proclaim to fall under that description? Hans Adler 23:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many countries are nesseary then 5, 60, 198? Does the pope have to declare someone a terrorist? Governments create their own definitions of what terrorists are, and since the icelandic government clearly called these people terrorists thats what they consider them to be.18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the description of the problem above. "Terrorism" is not an objectively defined state, despite Hans's attempts to do so—whether something is "terrorism" or not is subjective and completely in the eye of the beholder. If that's thought to be a problem for categories in general (it probably is), then the entire structure should be nominated for deletion. This is a case where someone has been active in removing the contents from one of these categories based on definitional issues, when in reality the situation here is not different than countless other examples to be found in Category:Terrorism by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that no matter what reasoning is provided, Hans Alder will not accept it. Let me know if I am wrong. So what is our next step?Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me it is starting to look like you might be correct on that score—I haven't seen much of a willingness to even acknowledge the possibility of differing views on the matter, let alone any sort of collaborative work or alternative suggestions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can limit accusations of shopping in the future if you keep involved editors in the loop especially if there is confusion as to what the next step is or where discussion is taking place.diff from BLPN 1986 Hvalur sinkings – categorising an event as terrorism Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to take this as a "no" from you to my question whether we already have consensus? I am curious. What, then, do you think about this guideline sentence: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Do you think it is invalid? Or do you think it does not apply here? Or is it some mixture of both? Hans Adler 10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that there is not as big of a lack of consensus from editors looking into it or as much of a controversy as you are making it. Editors are certainly against how and the provided reasoning for your block but it seems that there is not too much traction (not zero of course) for your other reasoning. Reminds me of watching Lost with all these unanswered questions: Is it a BLP issue? Is it navigational issue? Do sources discussing it as terrorism and governments from different countries make it noncontraversial? Does the level of the category tree matter? Do other transgressions limit the BLP issue if it even exists in the first place? What guideline gets nitpicked for it to happen or not? So no, there is not consensus. Some questions can always be asked and rebuttals can always be made. Would love to get the big ones covered but assume the small ones will always be a sticking point leaving to charges of "no consensus" and make a contradiction to something that is well discussed in sources. Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, what is an acceptable way to get to a consensus? I think it's not necessary for me to stress that keeping the discussion hidden on this page, which is watched by roughly 16 editors, is not acceptable. Do you have any objections to taking it to WP:NPOV/N? Hans Adler 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An observation: if consensus was actually found among the participation of 16 editors, that would be generally considered to be quite a strong consensus on WP. It's always good to promote participation and the principle of the more the merrier clearly applies, but we do have to remember to work with what we have and we can't avoid moving forward by claiming that there are not enough participants in forming the consensus. If users don't care, they don't care. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know very well that the number of watchers (which I estimated as the number of all editors who ever edited the article or talk page, including trivial edits) is usually bigger than the number of editors prepared to take part in a discussion. Only 6 editors have left comments on this talk page, and the overall gist of these comments is very different from the overall gist of comments on the same matter in more central locations. Hans Adler 10:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 would work for me too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me too, under many circumstances. But if you think of a single editor representing the mainstream against 5 others at a fringe article, then you get an idea of how I feel here. In such cases going to a noticeboard is our standard method for getting an article to conform to our rules. However, since your proposed compromise works for me (in fact it doesn't even look like a compromise to me; it's simply correct categorisation) we may not have to continue this discussion. Hans Adler 11:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I would have no problem with going to a noticeboard if anyone wants to further pursue the use of Category:Terrorism in Iceland. If anyone wants to keep going with this, I think that going to a board would be a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt at compromise

[edit]

As another attempt at compromise, I suggest placing the article in Category:Crime in Iceland, which has been a parent category to Category:Terrorism in Iceland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although my initial response is that this could be rewarding inappropriate behavior, I have to admit that it would border on me trying to WP:WIN. This appears to be a decent solution.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that whatsoever. Hans Adler 10:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article in Category:Crime in Iceland, but if Cptnono wants to continue to pursue the issue, I don't want to suggest that this is necessarily a "final solution" that should stop any further developments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who recently found out about this from an unrelated page (Hans Adler actually used it as an example to support something I said), it sounds like a good idea to me. The events were absolutely a crime, but don't really fit well under terrorism (if this is terrorism, we'd then have to call the Boston Tea Party terrorism). I don't want to inflame the debate, just explaining my rationale here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any precedents were set here and Hans should be careful if he is implying that. And if sources discuss the Boston Tea Party as terrorism then it is something to consider since that is what we base articles on.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are none that I know of, and I'm a history major (Asian history, but I do have a strong background in American history) who's read literally hundreds of documents from that time. The Brits were not happy, but they didn't label it terrorism- they just called it treason, which is markedly different in that instance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they didn't label it terrorism. The Boston Tea Party happened 20 years before the Reign of Terror, and it would take at least a century and a half before the word terrorism was invented and applied to something substantially different. And two centuries until some people seriously tried to stretch the word to the point of applying it to "violence" against things. Hans Adler 00:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1986 Hvalur sinkings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1986_Hvalur_sinkings&oldid=1209317950"