Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2003/08 (195.92.168.169)

195.xxx is adding POV content to Irish Republican Army and Provisional Irish Republican Army among others -- Jim Regan 23:21, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• • It is Jimregan who has POV problems re Irish Republican Army and Provisional Irish Republican Army. 'Terrorist' is simply too narrow a descriptor and is very loaded. I wonder what 'among others' might refer to Jim? - 195.92.168.169
    • "Among others" means I don't wish to simply quote your list of contributions; as to POV, it is stating a POV to change "terrorist" to something neutral; we are discussing people who have murdered civilians. -- Jim Regan 23:35, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • 'it is stating a POV to change XXXXXXX to something neutral'. You have damned yourself out of you own mouth by equating neutral with a POV.
        • Please sign your comments, instructions are available at the top of this page. As for that comment, I misrepresented myself; the way 195... changed terrorist to something he/she viewed as neutral was POV. In any case a neutral term does not always equal a neutral POV, especially not in this case, when we are talking about a terrorist/whatever neutral term you wish to employ type of group -- Jim Regan 00:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • Your argument is simply a child-like 'it just is' - 195.92.168.169.
            • That wasn't my intent - to rephrase, the use of neutral terms does not make for neutral point of view; your changing "terrorist" to the, as you would have it, neutral term "paramilitary" gives the implication that all of the IRA/whatever splinter group's activities are legitimate, thereby changing the tone of the article to somewhat sympathetic. If you were to add a sentence like "The IRA are viewed by their supporters as a legitimate paramilitary group", or if not their supporters, whatever other group whose views you can provide. The important part is that it be an attributed view; as is, the terrorist description should stay, as it is accurate, but you can provide alternate views to dispute it. -- Jim Regan 22:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • From WordNet: terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
    • If you wish to change the use of this term in reference to the IRA or any of its splinter groups, please feel free to give evidence of how their actions do not fit under that description. -- Jim Regan 23:42, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Terrorist is a POV label if it does not cover the full gamut of their operations (against military, police, economic targets) and their giving of warnings for civilians to clear the area (however bungled at times). Terrorism is violence directed at civilians, so it is not an adequate descriptor. I'm English and I can see that! - 195.92.168.169.
        • Fine, describe their other activities. Add a note describing how a minority view them as folk heroes. Paramilitary doesn't cut it as a description though; if it threatens like a terrorist, and lays bombs like a terrorist, I'd be inclined to believe it is a terrorist. The definition I gave is pretty simple, pretty widely accepted, and your list of other activities does nothing to dispute terrorist behaviour; giving warning for civilians tends towards the rule, not the exception. -- Jim Regan 00:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
          • Jim, I have already described activities (eg: attacking military bases) that are obviously guerrilla in character. If you are going to sum them up as terrorist then that is plain inaccurate and reflects badly on your sense of neutrality, which seem to be determined by your own personal lack of approval - 195.92.168.169.
            • Against military targets, fine; if their activities were restricted to military targets. Attacking police and economic targets are generally considered terrorist acts. Considered as a whole their activities are terrorist; that you consider the whole of their activities legitimised by a subset reflects badly on your neutrality. -- Jim Regan 22:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This does not appear to be technically "vandalism" -- 195 maybe if you had a face (a pseudoname) demonstrating your intention to stay and resolve issues with civility, then we can proceed to making the article express all appropriate points of view. -戴&#30505sv 00:26, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
      • I will think about it Stevertigo. Trying to cut down surfing at present!
        • I do think 195 and Jim both have points, and I think also that this is more of a partisan debate than a question of vandalism. I think the intentions are good on both sides. Koyaanis Qatsi 00:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • (1) terrorist is the agreed wiki term to be used to describe movements such as the IRA. (2) While this user is not a vandal, he has been adding in some lines that conflict with NPOV and which for that reason, not because of a political agenda, have been removed, and will continue to be removed by Irish and non-Irish wikipedians alike. In particular, calling Northern Ireland the six counties is a no-no, yet this user consistently adds it in. For those who may not know, Northern Ireland has a number of alternative unofficial names used by either community but not acceptable to both. The terms are deeply POV hence their non-use on wiki. They include six counties & twenty-six counties - 195.92.168.169's preferred terminology exclusively used by Irish republicans in Sinn Féin and the IRA and offensive to everyone else. (Other POV terms for Northern Ireland are North of Ireland, The Province and Ulster (meaning N.I., as distinct to the geographic province of Ulster, which covers a larger area). This user's consistent censoring of the word terrorist (used by 90%+ of Irish people, international sourcebooks, encyclopædias and the Irish and world governments to describe the IRA) and determination to use the politically loaded 'six county' term, has left Irish users under the impression that he is pushing an unrepresentative pro-Sinn Féin agenda on wiki. Any attempt to do that will be reverted on sight. FearÉIREANN 00:49, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Ok, well, JT, 172 -- now that weve established that 195 "is not a vandal" why the hell was this edit war added to the VIP page??-戴&#30505sv
      • Because I was mistaken about the user's intent; I would have moved the discussion, but it had gone on far longer than I could stay wake for. -- Jim Regan 22:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)