Category: Organizations defined

Category: Organizations defined as terrorists by the European Union just found a new category for copy of W: FR, applied in the first article of ETA: Category: Organizations defined as terrorists by the EU . Later is being applied to more organizations, but I think it is a category ideologized, and should be removed. It is to condition the content categories of articles. The term “defined” and the attribution to the European Union introduces doubt about the term “terrorist” defining of these organizations. This type of “content” should be in the article in question in the appropriate paragraph, but not to condition the entire article from the category. Kingdom to the matters discussed in this issue, I think it is necessary to review the rules and policies regarding categories and categorization to include correct uses and applications of categories.Saludos ) wikisilki iklisikiw 15:54 30 oct 2008 (UTC) Wikisilki I have answered on your talk page, but quisisera do here too. After watching the debates to certain categories outright as the Category: Terrorist organizations that leave no margin for second impressions or opinions, I thought it appropriate, taking the example French or English, to create a category that defines a group as terrorist as lists handled by relevant agencies, in this case the EU (but it could create more) would be more appropriate. Why It is an objective category, not based on impressions of the ors and does not create controversies and endless discussions in which different viewpoints collide, but simply reports that a supranational body X considers a terrorist organization, nothing more. Whether the reader feels like that commensurate with its status as a criterion of what is a “terrorist” or “terrorist organization” is another story, do not get into it.Montgomery (Do It Yourself) 16:06 30 oct 2008 (UTC) The clarity is not the enemy of neutrality and the euphemistic circumlocutions are not necessarily required to be neutral. A terrorist organization is considered as international public opinion and international agencies are so perceived. No claim in this case is a terrorist organization suspected murderer is like calling someone convicted of such offense. A simple lie. He is a murderer. If there are doubts about the trial or the process that led to this, it is stated in the article, not in the categories. As you say in your talk page, the categories are not a means for constraining the content of the articles, or even if such a qualification for the “neutrality” in it. Considerations must be in the same article, neutralizing their content where necessary, but not in the categories.These should be minimally exclusive, or we will find a safe over-categorization: terrorist organizations by the UN, terrorist organizations by Amnesty International, terrorist organizations by the United States considered terrorist organizations by the League of Arab States, terrorist organizations by the Vatican … and by all organizations, prominent individuals engaged etc. considerations. And surely all with the same rigor applied to a single article. We can distinguish terrorist organizations by ideology, by origin, but not if they are considered by one or another. If we enter into considerations, we would end up coming to create “not considered terrorist organizations by these but by others” categories should not inform, but to organize, and must emerge from the article, unconditioned.Saludos ) wikisilki iklisikiw 16:59 30 oct 2008 (UTC) The clarity is the enemy of neutrality based on excluding second opinions, in some marginal cases but in others considerable, X classification as a terrorist group or not. The paradigmatic case of Hamas is, here is a long discussion with one page for inclusion in the terrorist category, providing references, and others against, with the appropriate sources.Who is right Do not know, is subjective, perhaps out of Wikipedia you could give a personal opinion, but the only way to do so while respecting the WP: NPOV is using the different views that are handled officially by the national and supranational organizations, such as EU, ie obtaining their lists or sources and indicators in the article who see them as terrorists and not, adding one or more categories based on those lists rather than by objective and absolute statements such as the Category: Organizations terrorists.

Comments are closed.