[WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms

[Harry Smith]

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. 
>From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
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 at telus.net> wrote:
> S. Vertigo wrote:
> 
> >--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail