Category talk:Lehi (group)

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

Whitewashing[edit]

Here Drork (talk · contribs) remove the entire description as well as the category Category:Terrorism with no good reason.[1] // Liftarn (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn - if you want to make political statement - do it somewhere else. This is the Commons, not Hyde Park. Drork (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good you're interested in talking. Bad that you dodge the issue. // Liftarn (talk) 20:41, 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) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not the first time you have tried to hide away things you don't want people to see. I understand that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, but there is just as mych consensus about Lehi as it is about Al-Qaeda. Lehi was labelled a terrorist organisation both by British authorities the the UN. If you look at en:Lehi_(group) you find that it's categorised as en:Category:Terrorism in the British Mandate of Palestine, en:Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist and en:Category:Zionist terrorism and as enwiki falls under NPOV I think that indicates a clear consensus. // Liftarn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
either should be "Accused of" or in the appropreate country (-i.e. terrorism in Israel, including, for example, the PLO, Hamas etc)
Then is should also include who made the accusation. But I think that would be unpractical. // Liftarn (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree - this group can only be in a category: Groups declared as terrorist by the British mandate government" otherwise it is inaccurate. Deror avi (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be very unpractical since then this category would have to be put in Category:Organisations labelled terrorists by United Kingdom, Category:Organisations labelled terrorists by United Nations and Category:Organisations labelled terrorists by Israel. // Liftarn (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Liftarn, you were using the fact that this category was not looked into for about a month in order to introduce once again your political views against Zionist organizations in the most improper way. I sincerely hope this is the last time you do such a thing. Drork (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You may want to read Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorism where there is some discussion on the matter. That Lehi was described as a terrorist group by many reliable sources is ofsourse also relevant. You can add Category:Freedom fighters as well if you would like. // Liftarn (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to add politically motivated categories to the Commons, because I respect this site. I expect you to do the same. Drork (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do and that's why I add relevant categories. What about adding Category:National heroes as well? Would that be a working compromise? // Liftarn (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The answer is no. No politics, period. You've done enough already to make it a political forum, and we all have to put up with it because you have enough time and energy to force your opinion and to create ad-hoc consensus. Your "compromise" is just another step in turning this site more political than ever. Give it a rest. Drork (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you bring in the strawman argument about politics into this. It has nothing to do with politics, but the fact thet the group has been labelled terrorists (and not just once, but several times). // Liftarn (talk)

The fact that this organization (which ceased to exist 60 years ago) was labeled "terrorist" in certain countries is irrelevant here. Had it been an article in Wikipedia it would have been worth mentioning this fact, but this is merely a category of images. There are many past and present organizations labeled as terrorist by one party or another: Palestinian Hamas, Lebanese Hizbullah, IRA or one of its fractions in Northern Ireland, Palestinian Fatah and the list is long. Sometimes there is a justification for this labeling, sometimes it is merely a political or juridic tool to delegitimize a certain organization. We are not supposed to hold this discussion here. Categorizing these organizations as "militant" or "paramilitary" is more than enough. People who wish to have more information will turn to Wikipedia where they will find a carefully phrased article about this delicate issue. The fact that you are so zealous about defining Zionist organizations as "terrorist" while you refrain from doing the same about Arab organizations or organizations elsewhere in the world, combining with the fact you hurry up to upload here anti-Israeli caricatures and give anti-Israeli descriptions to pictures taken in the West Bank makes me suspect that this explanation of mine won't satisfy you, as your interests probably lie elsewhere. Drork (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That they were labelles a terrorist organisation is actually what is relevant here. See the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Terrorism. I don't like the category, but since it's here it should be used to help people find images. // Liftarn (talk)

I'll say it once again: Liftarn, you have a blog. Keep you political opinions there, and don't import them into this non-political site. Drork (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You continuing effort to whitewash what several reliable sources (including Shimon Peres) have described as a terrorist organisation is getting rather tired. I'm sure you can start your own blog if you wish to have a place to call terrorists "freedom fighters" or "heroes" or whaever, but please keep your censorship out or Commons. // Liftarn (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Your continuing effort to make this site your own blog is not appreciated at all. Drork (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
PS - Interestingly enough, you've never asked to put Category:Hamas under Category:Terrorism. I never asked that myself, because, as I said, categories are not meant to tacitly suggest political opinions. For the record, many countries recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Had you been interested in improving the Category:Terrorism, you'd start there, but obviously you're here just to make political statements. Drork (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Please keep your personal remarks to yourself. I agree that Hamas should be included in that category. I naturally assumed they already were and have now fixed that. Thank you for pointing that out. Could you now please explain why the Stern gans should not be included in Category:Terrorism. After all we have several reliable sources labelling them as terrorists so it clearly isn't just something I have invented. // Liftarn (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI I also added Category:Terrorism to Category:Jan Guillou and Category:African National Congress. Regrettably there is no category for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps[2]. // Liftarn (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could remove this categorization there too, because it seems to me very problematic as well. In general, I would advise you to avoid politically-motivated categorization. Drork (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
AS reliable sources say they are terorrists they go into the category. That includes Category:African National Congress, Category:United States Army and Category:Central Intelligence Agency. After all, we don't want any double standards, do we? // Liftarn (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The most appropriate place to establish an inclusion criteria for Category:Terrorism would be the talk page of that category or similar, not here. Adambro (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)