Talk:1986 Hvalur sinkings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“ When you moved Terrorism in Iceland to 1986 Hvalur sinkings, a redirect was created. I have started a deletion discussion for this redirect, because it is another case of libel. So far as I know there was never any terrorism in Iceland, and in fact rarely anything very interesting happens there. So it is no wonder part of the media used somewhat extreme language. This is no excuse to describe acts by living people as terrorism when they are not. Being branded as a terrorist, even innocently, can have serious consequences nowadays. I also had to remove the category Category:Terrorism in Iceland from the article for the same reason. I have not removed the category Category:Eco-terrorism, because the word Eco-terrorism has been defined much wider, presumably because otherwise it would describe something virtually non-existent. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ”

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. 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)

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)
You bring up a lot of good material, particularly WB: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)