Category talk:Red Army Faction
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Prezbo
A German terrorist group from the 1970s isn't "antifascist resistance." the German and American governments at the time weren't "fascist." Do you seriously think this is an argument you could win if people were paying attention to it?Prezbo (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- To bounce your argument: An antifascist resistance group from the 1970s isn't "terrorism". Invading Vietnam to cancel elections, is rather fascist IMHO, the USA did it, their nazi-meatpuppets approved it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- OMG you're ridiculous. Do you really think calling Lyndon Johnson "fascist" is in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Obviously the category is meant for media relating to the 1933-1945 period, look at every other file in it. You have to realize this is something you would have absolutely no chance of getting away with in a more heavily trafficked area of the Wikipedia universe.Prezbo (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call Category:Dresden nazifrei 2010, Category:Gräfenberg ist bunt, Category:Köln stellt sich quer [o]bviously […] relating to the 1933-1945 period. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read en:Gulf of Tonkin Incident#Distortion of the event. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll pass. Is it necessary to argue about this more, or will you leave this alone?Prezbo (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your attempt get me banned failed, arguments would be a welcome chance. Please explain why US troops were bombing civilian targets in Viet Nam, why the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Categories are intended to help people find images, not to advance political arguments. Why don't you try to convince the editors at LBJ's Wikipedia article that he was a fascist and then come back here once you've succedded.Prezbo (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. categories are not to advance political arguments. Do you agree to remove Category:Terrorism? There are several wikipedia articles on mister "kindermeel". Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Categories are intended to help people find images, not to advance political arguments. Why don't you try to convince the editors at LBJ's Wikipedia article that he was a fascist and then come back here once you've succedded.Prezbo (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your attempt get me banned failed, arguments would be a welcome chance. Please explain why US troops were bombing civilian targets in Viet Nam, why the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll pass. Is it necessary to argue about this more, or will you leave this alone?Prezbo (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- OMG you're ridiculous. Do you really think calling Lyndon Johnson "fascist" is in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Obviously the category is meant for media relating to the 1933-1945 period, look at every other file in it. You have to realize this is something you would have absolutely no chance of getting away with in a more heavily trafficked area of the Wikipedia universe.Prezbo (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No. The RAF is in "Category:Terrorism in Germany" on the English Wikipedia and it's in a similar category in most other Wikipedias I spot-checked. It's not in a terrorism-related category on the German Wikipedia but that article calls them terrorists in the first sentence, so that's probably an oversight rather than an editorial decision. Commons categories should reflect the picture of the world presented by Wikipedia. Issues like this are the subject of incredibly involved and time-consuming debates on Wikipedia, and it makes no sense to have to re-fight them here. Convince the editors at Wikipedia to remove that category and you can remove it here.Prezbo (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, I don't think that "commons categories should reflect the picture of the world presented by Wikipedia" (e.g. which wikipedia?,). It makes a lot of sense to question urban legends at every place where they appear. The RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) has killed one uniformed police member in all of the Netherlands, the RAF and USAF killed 73 civilians during what some call a 3-day-raid, yet most died while they helped the wounded, when a second wave was sent. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it makes sense to consolidate discussion to the extent possible, and to have that discussion at the place where the most people possible are paying attention to it. That would be the RAF's Wikipedia article, not their Commons category, which virtually nobody will ever look at. There are only ten big Wikipedias (more than 500,000 articles). Two of those are in alphabets I can't read; the other eight all call the RAF terrorists, call what they did terrorism, or put them in a terrorism-related category. So "which Wikipedia?" is not an actual problem; most or all of them agree on this. The fact that Wikipedia isn't reliable is irrelevant. I can't think of any reason to discuss this here rather than in a higher-traffic, more visible place. The issues involved are exactly the same. There are people on Wikipedia who think that evolution is a lie, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, etc. It takes laborious and time-consuming discussion to keep those viewpoints out of Wikipedia articles, but one saving grace is that it's not generally necessary to have the exact same discussions on Commons too. You want to change that situation for some reason.Prezbo (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- One doesn't "read" in alfabets, one reads 汉字 or one doesn't (I'm a barbarian too). As you have already admitted the RAF article doesn't have your propaganda category, it does link to de:terroristische Vereinigung, but that's like linking to nl:illegaliteit. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- It describes the RAF and its activities as terroristic multiple times.Prezbo (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- And it categorizes the RAF as de:Kategorie:Untergrundorganisation (Deutschland), which seems less partisan than your categorization. Considering the first meaning at nl:ondergrondse, I rather like it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- "My" categorization. Fine, Commons is different than German Wikipedia in that it has categories like "Terrorism in Germany" or "Terrorism in the United States" and the German Wikipedia doesn't. The fact that the German Wikipedia still calls the RAF terrorists shows that this difference in organization doesn't have any ideological significance.Prezbo (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your remark shows that you mistakenly believe that English and German can be transliterated. The German terroristisch and the US-English terroristic only share some meanings, however they also show differences. The German word has connotations like de:Terror, the US-English has connotations like opposed to US hegemonism. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- "My" categorization. Fine, Commons is different than German Wikipedia in that it has categories like "Terrorism in Germany" or "Terrorism in the United States" and the German Wikipedia doesn't. The fact that the German Wikipedia still calls the RAF terrorists shows that this difference in organization doesn't have any ideological significance.Prezbo (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- And it categorizes the RAF as de:Kategorie:Untergrundorganisation (Deutschland), which seems less partisan than your categorization. Considering the first meaning at nl:ondergrondse, I rather like it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- It describes the RAF and its activities as terroristic multiple times.Prezbo (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- One doesn't "read" in alfabets, one reads 汉字 or one doesn't (I'm a barbarian too). As you have already admitted the RAF article doesn't have your propaganda category, it does link to de:terroristische Vereinigung, but that's like linking to nl:illegaliteit. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it makes sense to consolidate discussion to the extent possible, and to have that discussion at the place where the most people possible are paying attention to it. That would be the RAF's Wikipedia article, not their Commons category, which virtually nobody will ever look at. There are only ten big Wikipedias (more than 500,000 articles). Two of those are in alphabets I can't read; the other eight all call the RAF terrorists, call what they did terrorism, or put them in a terrorism-related category. So "which Wikipedia?" is not an actual problem; most or all of them agree on this. The fact that Wikipedia isn't reliable is irrelevant. I can't think of any reason to discuss this here rather than in a higher-traffic, more visible place. The issues involved are exactly the same. There are people on Wikipedia who think that evolution is a lie, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, etc. It takes laborious and time-consuming discussion to keep those viewpoints out of Wikipedia articles, but one saving grace is that it's not generally necessary to have the exact same discussions on Commons too. You want to change that situation for some reason.Prezbo (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Even without speaking German I'm confident in saying that "terroristen," which is what that article calls RAF members, are people who commit "terrorismus," which is why this is in "Category:Terrorism in Germany."Prezbo (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really believe that the meanings of "terrorismus" and "terrorism" are significantly different, but if they are...well, Commons' categories are in English so you'll just have to suffer through the best approximation possible in our barbaric tongue.Prezbo (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's „Terrorismus" and „Terroristen", but that's only spelling. And yes the words mean almost the same, but at the same time they mean different things. Killing random citizens to spread terror is terrorism. But what about "strategic bombing" to spread terror ("shock and awe")? What about a precision strike on two command centers, where most victims are military aged males? Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- So you agree that the RAF's actions were terrorism and they belong in this category? Great! If you think that George Bush is also a terrorist or whatever then go argue about it at Category:George W. Bush, I don't agree but I'm not going to make that my problem.Prezbo (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree. The Rote Armee Fraktion hardly ever attacked random civilians. They targetted their attacks, we may agree (and even agree) whether some targets were legitimate targets, but the RAF didn't just rape a girl and kill her family. George Bush and his henchmen murdered around 1 million civilians.
- OK whatever. Anyway, Wikipedia considers their actions terrorism (whichever language you look at) and since it's not really the place of Commons to adjudicate these things we should just follow suit and put them in this category.Prezbo (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since when is User:Prezbo the official spokespuppet of wikipedia? Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK whatever. Anyway, Wikipedia considers their actions terrorism (whichever language you look at) and since it's not really the place of Commons to adjudicate these things we should just follow suit and put them in this category.Prezbo (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree. The Rote Armee Fraktion hardly ever attacked random civilians. They targetted their attacks, we may agree (and even agree) whether some targets were legitimate targets, but the RAF didn't just rape a girl and kill her family. George Bush and his henchmen murdered around 1 million civilians.
- So you agree that the RAF's actions were terrorism and they belong in this category? Great! If you think that George Bush is also a terrorist or whatever then go argue about it at Category:George W. Bush, I don't agree but I'm not going to make that my problem.Prezbo (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is my interpretation of the respective roles of Wikipedia and Commons, since one of them is an encyclopedia that aims to present an unbiased view of complex and controversial issues, while the other one is an image repository with a more utilitarian purpose.Prezbo (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)