with regard to calling an act murder. The common
definition of murder and the definition that appears
in wikipedia is:
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death
of another human being, without lawful excuse.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if
the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the
family's property/land. Does the family's refusal
constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
If its does not constitute lawful excuse, the act is
murder per the first line of the wikipedia entry on
murder.
My question is do we use the term murder for this
shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on
murder?
seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own
definitions for words at wikipedia.
is this type of internal consistency valuable?
if it is not should we make that known?
is using the term murder according to the wikipedia
definition POV?
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
ps. perhaps the shooter meant to wound rather than
kill. please repeat the above substituting
manslaugter for murder.
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
S. Vertigo wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Calling this squad terrorists,
calling their act murder, presuming that the squad
was from Al-Aqsa... all seem
to be strategies to inflame the issue with
unverified facts.
...Hence 'disruption,' which appears aimed toward
sabotaging progress. I dont think thats entirely
the
case here; the term 'terrorist' is
inapropriate as
a
primary descriptor; but much of American
political
rhetoric uses it. If I replace the term terrorist
with
militant, am I farting in the wind, or will I
receive
some support? This is a general editorial-type
decision with regard to what terms are NPOV.
To my knowlege, an 'editorial decision process'
about
anything (other than the general concept of NPOV)
let
alone what terms to avoid has yet to be tried
here.
It
should be; we should have an editorial board that
sets
some journalistic NPOV standards. Heck, even the
Reuters article that Lance6 was quoting was just
mostly an up to the minute hack job.
S
Setting up some kind of weaponry seems "militant"
(or "military") enough
for me. In a Quebec French context it has come to
be applied to any
active supporter of a political party. I tend to
object when that use
is transferred into English. In the context of the
current dispute it's
at least worth trying. "Militant" can probably be
more easily
circumscribed than "terrorist". Zero's term was
"gunmen", and that too
is relatively neutral. The concept of a good
militant is as easily
envisioned as that of a bad militant, and perhaps
that is what makes it
more acceptable. On the other hand the idea of a
good terrorist would
be a pretty hard sell.
The level of support a person gets on anything here
is unpredictable.
Speaking for myself, I would not have commented but
for the fact that
the matter appeared in the mailing list. I just
don't hang out at the
Israel/Palestine articles. Most of us don't.
I like the idea of a list of tabooed words. People
tend not to
understand words very well, and it gets worse when a
controversial
subject is involved. Understanding that a word has
connotations in
addition to its denotaions can be hard to get
across. This episode led
me to dig up my copy of Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny
of Words",
originally published in 1938. He relates the story
of asking about 200
people what they thought the word "fascism" meant,
and how dramatically
different the answers were, though most had negative
connotations. It
includes "Government in the interest of the majority
for the purpose of
accomplishingthings democracy cannot do" or "A
govenmentwhere you can
live comfortably if you never disagree with it" or
"A form of government
where socialism is used to perpetuate capitalism".
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!