Category talk:Irgun (group)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Here Drork (talk · contribs) have removed the category Category:Terrorism as well as the description citing several reliable sources saying they were a terrorist group.[1] // Liftarn (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn - if you are looking for new political debates, look for them somewhere else. If you want to game the system - do it in another site. Drork (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good you're interested in talking. Bad that you dodge the issue. // Liftarn (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not the first time that you try to introduce politics into the categorization system. We do not define organizations as terrorist unless there is 100% consensus about it, i.e. in the case of Al-Qaeda which is considered terrorist by most countries, or Kach which was declared terrorist by Israel itself. I added a short explanation about the multiple names of this historical organization, and further information is available on Wikipedia in several languages. There is absolutely no reason to start dealing with sensitive historical information on the Commons. I hope this is the end of this discussion. Drork (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On enwiki en:Irgun is categorised as en:Category:Jewish terrorism, en:Category:Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine and en:Category:Zionist terrorism and condidering the NPOV damnds on enwiki I think we have a clear consensus on the issue. To quote a period description they "inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and widespread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.". // Liftarn (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the Commons. Not en-wp. There are many organizations who are considered terrorist, some of them Arab organizations. I don't think this is the right place to start a debate about any of these organizations. Liftarn, I see you do your best to introduce politics into this site. You've probably noticed I don't appreciate this effort of yours, and I don't think other users here appreciate it, may be they are a bit more tolerant than I. Stop this. Drork (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I agree this is not the place to discuss other organisations. I have noticed that you have tried to introduce politics into Commons by hiding away things you don't think people should see. That I brought up enwiki is as a clear example of how uncontroversial the category is. Unless you support terrorism you have nothing to fear. // Liftarn (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You do your best to make this site a scene of terror, and I'm afraid to say you are quite successful. Most users here are too afraid to confront you. I'm not one of them. Drork (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any arguments for your position? // Liftarn (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to continue your shameful conduct? Drork (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the shame of proper categorisation. // Liftarn (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I see the shame in trying to introduce political views into this non-political project. Drork (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with politics, but a simple observation of facts. "Leaders within the mainstream Jewish Agency, Haganah, Histadrut, as well as British authorities, routinely condemned Irgun operations as terrorist and branded it an illegal organization as a result of the group's attacks on civilian targets. /../ In 1948, The New York Times published a letter signed by a number of prominent Jewish figures including Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, Sidney Hook, and Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, which described Irgun as a "a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine"." // Liftarn (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Liftarn, give it a break, your conduct is far from being consructive or helpful. Drork (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding relevant categories is actually considered helpfull as it helps people find the files. I fully understand your position, but it is inconsistent with the facts. I think we need to bring this to a wider discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is over. Please give this issue a rest. Drork (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)