Talk:Shamil Basayev/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

'Terrorist' in the lead

Use of the description "terrorist" is supported by multiple instances and sources in the article itself. It's axiomatic that one man's freedom fighter/hero is another man's terrorist, but when external reliable sources to the specific demographic also describe the recipient as a terrorist, then it can be taken as a suitable label. Furthermore - just removing the term from the lede does not ultimately change the article itself - there are over 20 instances of the the term "terrorist" in the article, all of which would need to be examined as well as just the first lede sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

People in Nazi Germany elected Hitler. So do we consider what he done was legit and had nothing wrong? I don't think so. As you can see, things change regarding to time and place. Consensus is not the truth for all the time, is not a criteria to reach the truth, and sources you rely on may not be relied on by someone else. Akh of an akh (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is in effect - and a lot sooner than expected too. Your post makes no sense. However, they are not the sources that I rely upon, but those that Wikipedia relies upon. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If deciding one's reliability is up to some random guys on the top of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is not neutral. But they are claiming to be, because they know neutrality is attractive and will urge people to trust them. Anyway, if they claim to be neutral, I can question their rules, because their rules are to stop certain actions from happening and to spread the actions they want. Rules might be rightful, but they are never neutral. So, if some people and his buds have a little piece of honor and dignity, they would stop claiming to be neutral. That is impossible for any human to do. All aside, even God is biased towards His believers. Akh of an akh (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Random lurkers: Use the WaybackMachine to check out this article's "evolution" for a good laugh. I love the removal of "terrorist" after a war the editors dislike erupted (escalated). I guess hundreds of dead children just don't cut it anymore, not if it happened in Russia. Also never mind the countless references to Basayev as a terrorist all over the world over the years. Wikipedia is run by literal freaks. 109.93.177.159 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ola Tønningsberg: Please actually discuss instead of trying to edit war. This has been discussed before and you have no consensus for your edit. Mellk (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Mellk To start of, I must say that this article has big problems when it comes to WP:NPOV and WP:OR, with the article largely not following Wikipedias guidelines on neutrality as well as no original research as some other users have pointed out. Lets start with the issue regarding the word "terrorist" in the lead of the biography.

• Firstly, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective. You don't assign someone the word "terrorist" as a factual statement. Not even figures like Osama Bin Laden is attributed the word terrorist in his lead.
• Secondly, it does not follow MOS:FIRSTBIO. The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person... avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
• Regarding your sources, the first provided source is some dubious german newspaper article. The second source doesn't mention him as such. The third source doesn't even mention what is stated, which is a violation of WP:OR.

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV does not mean you have to write about everything in a neutral manner. If most sources say something, then it will be reflected as such. You will find that there are actually biographical articles that include "terrorist" in the first sentence. Why is it not there for the Osama bin Laden article? I don't know but probably that is the consensus there and not relevant here. However here there is consensus. There was even invisible text for it. It also mentions sources throughout the article and this is sourced in the body. Per MOS:LEAD the lead does not need to be sourced and the citations can be in the body instead. But your edit warring is not appropriate at all. You're right, WP:BRD is not policy, it is a method of reaching consensus. You however have no consensus and trying to force your changes through edit warring IS against policy. This has been removed before but these get reverted because the consensus is clear. Mellk (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And it probably can be improved, but your way is not the right way, also please remember about the discretionary sanctions. Mellk (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the opening paragraph of WP:NPOV? As per WP:NPOV, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia MUST be written from a neutral point of view. This policy is as per the official guidelines: non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. This in turn means whatever consensus has been previously established holds no ground in this case. Which biographical articles describes the noted person as a 'terrorist' in the opening line? The two most probably notable terrorists in modern times, Osama bin laden, doesn't have 'terrorist' in his opening line, neither does Abu bakr al baghdadi. This designation only appears later, in which case it uses the in-text attribution as per MOS:TERRORIST, which this article already does a few lines down as per my most recent edit. You can also find enough citations where Basayev has been described as a freedom fighter. However, as per MOS:FIRSTBIO, you avoid subjective or contentious terminology. There are enough sources which describes him as a politician and author among other stuff. The invisible line does not matter in this case. Leaving the article as it was in the previous state is a violation of several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. These are not my rules, neither is this edit warring. You being unhappy with my edits just sounds like a WP:JDL. Even in this state the article does not satisfy the Wikipedia standard.

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, neutral point of view. Did you complete that paragraph? If all RS describe someone as a terrorist, then they can be called a terrorist in wikivoice. Anders Breivik is called a terrorist because RS call him a terrorist. Your argument is basically "Osama bin Laden isn't called a terrorist in the first sentence of his article therefore it means it is against NPOV to call someone a terrorist". It does not hold up at all. You do not have consensus so I suggest to self-revert instead, there is no valid excuse to not follow this. Please go ahead and find WP:RS for "freedom fighter" in the meantime. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

As per Mellk arguments, and WP:EW, continually removing valid, sourced and referenced material from the article - especially when previously reverted - is against policy and may well end in blocks. There is nothing wrong with discussion, but forcing a revised version while discussion is ongoing is not tolerated, and will only quicken breach of 3RR.

In short - to be neutral means reporting without prejudice or sensationalism what the reliable sources say, and not skimming or ignoring statements because you don't like them, or because they paint a bad picture. If the bad picture is reliably sourced, then there is no breach of policy by including it. As the lede summarises the article, it's proper that it describes Basayev as a terrorist as that's what the article describes him as. In fact, sources are not necessary because the lede summarises the article, and the article is sourced to show this statement - but sources have been added in anyway. All bases have been covered, and the fact that Bin Laden is not described as a terrorist is simply WP:OTHERSTUFF - although it should be noted that the lede does say "His group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries" and "His involvement in terrorist attacks landed him on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's lists of Most Wanted Terrorists and Ten Most Wanted Fugitives". Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see an issue with including "terrorist" in the lead for someone who was behind terrorist attacks. This is reflected in RS[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Clearly it is possible to include "terrorist" in WP articles, it is not against NPOV. It is possible to discuss a potential rewording but completely removing this in a bold edit without consensus and then telling others to use the talk page before it can be restored is not how it works. I also do not understand why "separatist" was removed. Apparently this is a term "coined by Russia".[8] I really don't know how to even respond to that. Mellk (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This is also someone who called himself a terrorist... Mellk (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If you bothered to read what I wrote overhead, then you would realize that what I removed is not "valid and sourced material". Firstly, the three sources provided are simply comical to say the least. The first source is a dubious German newspaper article, the second doesn't even mention him as a terrorist, and the third is a text-book violation of WP:OR. This as well as my aforementioned reasons makes my edit therefore completely valid. This, along with the fact that the state of which the article was in is a violation of several guidelines and policies only supports my argument. The fact that "terrorist" is constantly being removed and added back in a tug of war for the past 14 years explains enough about this issue. Your willingness to ignore it further proves your agenda.
Furthermore, I've repeatedly gone through every mention of 'terrorist' in the article, and the only mentions of this word are attributing him to have committed such acts. I'm not against him being a terrorist, I'm against it being in the lead in the way it is today which violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The lead already mentions him being responsible for hostage takings and terrorist acts. It also describes him as a terrorist in accordance to MOS:TERRORIST. There are sources which refer to him as a hero[9][10][11] page10. However, including this would also be incorrect, as per MOS:FIRSTBIO and WP:NPOV.
As far as the Bin Laden article goes, I've already explained that the terrorist designation appears after in accordance to Wikipedia policies MOS:TERRORIST using the in-text attribution that is key to achieving the neutrality standard that Wikipedia strives for. This article also followed this policy and Wikipedias manual of style in my latest edit until you decided to revert it. It's not an issue of WP:OTHERSTUFF, as this policy mainly applies to deletion of articles, and not always about the content. Quoting: "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement. It's normal to look at better articles and try to mimic it's style.
I'm all up for reaching a consensus here, although I don't appreciate what seems to me as blatant POV-pushing. I'm tagging the most recent editors on this page @Chaheel Riens:, @LuckyStrike007: and @Sextus Caedicius: for their input. They recently edited this page as well on this topic.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There are sources which refer to him as a hero.. Let's see, this says "Shamil Basayev became a national hero in Chechnya", this says "a national hero for many Chechens", this says: "To many of the opposition fighters in Chechnya, Dagestan and throughout the North Caucasus, Basayev was a legend, a hero unafraid to throw down the gauntlet to a nuclear power" (while at the same time it says: "But Basayev was not always a successful – and cynical – terrorist. In Nov. 1991, the name of Shamil Basayev meant nothing to veterans of Islamic terrorism.") These sources don't call him a hero, that is a complete misrepresentation of the sources, they merely state that he was seen as a hero to a certain group of people (and being seen as a hero does not mean someone is not a terrorist). Meanwhile sources do call him a terrorist, not simply "to the Russian authorities he is seen as a terrorist". The only sources that probably would call him a hero are some fringe extremist sites that are obviously unreliable and do not met WP:RS. A terrorist who was behind terrorist attacks and RS refer to him as a terrorist is not a controversial label in this case. Let's see, this says: "'Definitively eliminated' were the words Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov used to describe the death of Russia's most wanted terrorist, Shamil Basayev". "Moscow has again lashed out at the decision by Britain's Channel 4 News to air an interview with Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev" this says. And the other sources you ignored. Your willingness to ignore it further proves your agenda. – please WP:AGF, you were already told about discretionary sanctions so making such comments after the alert is not a good look. Mellk (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And you keep referring to the bin Laden article as some kind of proof that it is forbidden to include "terrorist" in the lead when it was already shown that this is not the case. Mellk (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And why did you not ping other recent editors if you decide to ping at all to bring people into your dispute (this is not necessary, a noticeboard maybe if it goes nowhere)? Mellk (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You just ignored every argument I made in order to cherry pick two of the four sources that was cited for the sake of a NPOV argument. this is a Russian source quoting a Russian official and this is quoting the Russian defence minister. I didn't cite this and it had nothing to do with my argument. My point still stands though. People view him differently.

Anyway, you just deviated the topic from the main issue to focus on something unimportant that was made for the sake of a POV-argument.

On a final note, I pinged the recent editors that edited this page regarding this specific topic. Ironically, these edits happen to be the only ones for the last month, further proving there is an issue with this page. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No these are different sources. I cited several ones in the reply before that one that you didn't acknowledge. None of these are "Russian sources". Yes some neo-Nazi extremists view Anders Breivik as a hero, that does not mean the terrorist label does not apply. Mellk (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens, LuckyStrike007, and Sextus Caedicius: Not sure if I'm pinging correctly so I'll try again. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands though. People view him differently - exactly right, and that's why we report all sides to the story - including those that show people in a negative light, such as in this case. That is what neutrality is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ola, it's probably best to try to reach a consensus here before participating in endless edit wars, I'm thinking of Chaheel Riens and LuckyStrike007 in particular. I think the discussion here is focused off-track, I'm not necessarily interested in proving or disapproving whether he was a terrorist or not, I'm sure we can go through countless RS sources endlessly. I think the question is whether the word terrorist should be in the first section of the lead and written in a way that is unusual for Wikipedia, and in this regard I'll have to say that I agree with User:Ola Tønningsberg. The word "Terror" and its variants are mentioned 20 times(exluding the References) in Basayev's article already, moreover we have this quote from the lead also: "ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."which also is in the lead. This is more than ample mention, & representation of the RS that describe him as a participator in terrorism in my estimation. It should also be noted that this article does not exist in vacuum, but it is more broadly connected to the Russian-Chechen conflict in the 20th century, if we are to look at Vladimir Shamanov's Wikipedia article for example it simply mentions his Military and Political occupation in the lead, even though countless RS sources describe him as a war criminal(but it is still mentioned in the article overall, which is also what I think should be the case here). (~~~~) Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sextus Caedicius - can you clarify please, you seem to be saying that because the term "terror" (and variants) is used 20 times in the article, including a quote from ABC describing him as a terrorist, the term should not be included in the lede? You seem to be supporting the opposite - there is significant and major use of the term to describe him as a terrorist, and given that the lede summarises the article - it seems even more appropriate to do so, and to continue to do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I can, the claim that he is a terrorist is already in the lead, "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world." from ABC news. The lead you and Mellk are arguing for is highly unconventional for Wikipedia, and moreover doesn't fit into the general style of lead's as it relates to the Russo-Chechen wars, and subjects/persons related to terrorism overall. So that's my view, the view that he was a terrorist is already in the lead, and that is even generous when compared to other articles. Should we get a noticeboard going on this? I'm also interested in the input of @Calthinus: as he has some experience on these topics.(Sextus Caedicius (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

You still seem to be supporting inclusion. If it's agreed that he's a terrorist, indeed "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world", then it's perfectly acceptable to keep it in as it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth Chaheel, I'm trying to have a discussion in good faith here. Read through my replies carefully. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC))

I'm not putting words into your mouth at all. I'm saying that your arguments against inclusion are equally - if not even more - effective as arguments for inclusion of the term. You accept - twice - that "the claim that he is a terrorist is already in the lead" and "So that's my view, the view that he was a terrorist is already in the lead", but are trying to use that as an argument to not use the term in the lede. Additionally, you say "It should also be noted that this article does not exist in vacuum, but it is more broadly connected to the Russian-Chechen conflict in the 20th century..." - that's irrelevant. This article is about the person Shamil Basayev, and although it may touch on other aspects, it is about him, and thus about how he was described in reliable sources. We are all agreed that he is described as a terrorist, and that the term is already used in the article - and that Basayev calls himself a terrorist: "a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ..." so why is it unreasonable to do so at the beginning of the lede? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to argue that Basayev described himself as a terrorist? I assume you don't speak Russian? The ABC article you posted didn't translate the full quote.

В разговоре с журналистом Басаев был довольно откровенен, поскольку уже давно знает журналиста. «Мне очень дорого чеченцы, чем покой в мире. Это понятно?» — начал Басаев. «Я признаю себя плохим парнем, бандитом, террористом, кем вы тогда назовете их (российские власти)? Если защитник конституционного порядка, если антитеррористами, то я плюю на все договоренности и красивые слова», — заявил Басаев. «Именно русские являются террористами. У нас идет борьба за нашу национальную независимость», — заявила боевик.

Here is a rough translation:

In a conversation with a journalist, Basayev was quite frank, since he had known the journalist for a long time. “The Chechens are very dear to me than peace in the world. This is clear?" Basaev began. “I recognize myself as a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist, what will you call them (the Russian authorities) then? If they(Russia) is a defender of the constitutional order, if they(Russia) is an antiterrorist, then I spit on all the agreements and beautiful words, ”Basayev said. “The Russians are the terrorists. We are fighting for our national independence,” the militant said.

I didn't believe you were biased to begin with, although now I have my doubts. It seems as though you just searched ' Basayev, terrorism' in google and utilized the first link you came across, instead of familiarizing yourself with the all sources first. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)) Sextus Caedicius (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe (as I clearly state) I used the article itself, where the above quote and source is used? Second Chechen War, 2005 section. And yet even so - you are still confirming that he describes himself as a terrorist. If we're going for tit-for-tat schoolyard commentary - why don't you use CTRL-F to check the article, after I've said that a given phrase is already in the article?

Even though Basayev had a $10 million bounty on his head, he gave an interview to Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky in which he described himself as "a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ... but what would you call them?", referring to his enemies. Basayev stated each Russian had to feel war's impact before the Chechen war would stop. Basayev asked "Officially, over 40,000 of our children have been killed and tens of thousands mutilated. Is anyone saying anything about that? ... responsibility is with the whole Russian nation, which through its silent approval gives a 'yes'." This interview was broadcast on U.S. television network ABC's Nightline program, to the protest of the Russian government; on 2 August 2005, Moscow banned journalists of the ABC network from working in Russia.

But that's by the by. The issue here is that once again you have confirmed that not only is the term terrorist supported by multiple sources present in the article, but that Basayev does indeed describe himself as a terrorist, even if it's to drive home his own point of view. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

hmm I don't know what else to do than to reiterate what already has been said. As confirmed in my previous reply, Basayev did in fact not describe himself as a terrorist, what he did say was essentially "If I am supposedly a terrorist, what does that make the Russians then", simple as. You are moving goalposts Chaheel, first you talk about RS then you somehow try to prove that Basayev gave the title of terrorist to himself. It's about time we get a noticeboard going. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC))

I have gone through every mention of the word 'terrorist' in the article, and to put it mildly, most mentions of this word are either unsourced or original research. Others are made by Russian newspapers or officials. Regarding OR, I have taken appropriate measures to correct this. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

And I've reverted - with one exception which was validated - because you have replaced all the terms with other unsourced terms, and the article itself supports the claims. Additionally, it is not out of context when a quote is used by the subject top describe himself. That goes for you too Sextus Caedicius, there is a difference between what somebody says, and how you see it as being essentially said. He is indeed pontificating about the Russians, but that does not lessen his description of himself. If you don't know what else to do, don't do anything. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ola Tønningsberg, please explain how you "corrected source titles" in this edit, when one of them is a 404 not found? Do you see where I'm headed with this? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've approached this discussion with good faith and solution oriented mindset from the get-go, yet I've only been met with strawman upon strawman. I have tirelessly tried to explain to you that I'm not arguing whether he is a terrorist or not(which is an altogether different debate). But whether the current first paragraph of the lead is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and it is not.

MOS:TERRORIST:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

In-text attribution is exactly what this is:

ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."

All I've been arguing for is that this article is in accordance with the manual of style, and precedent overall on wikipedia. If the word terrorist is removed in the first paragraph of the lead, the view that he was one is still accurately represented in the lead. Now let be ask you: why do you think the in-text attribution from ABC news is not sufficient? you are aware that you are arguing for something very unconventional for Wikipedia I hope. Why exactly should we not follow the Manual of Style in this article, what sets apart from the other articles where the Manual of Style is applied? (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC))

As per Basayev, he calls himself a terrorist, as do multiple sources in the article. You'll have to explain why you think the ABC is insufficient, because I'm pretty sure that the sheer number of sources using the term qualify under unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution - and as you presumably know sourcing is not required for the lede as it summarises the article body. However, as this is contentious it does have a source, but to keep you happy I've also added the source from Basayev's own statement. This is not a single use of the term "Terrorist" for shock value in the lede, but it has multiple usage (even after Ola Tønningsberg's whitewashing cleanup) in both article and sources.

Basayev's statement is clear - even taking into account context (ie how he views others' behaviour and actions) he still acknowledges the label. And even if you still doubt that - there are multiple other sources in the text that do so as well.

This is not going against MoS. Your own quote and interpretation of it have been followed - the claim is attributed directly, and multiple times. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Came here from the NPOV noticeboard. Based solely on the MOS (I didn't review the sources), having the ABC article label him a terrorist later in the lede and not using the label in the first sentence seems to be the correct move. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It is still fine to mention the terrorist attacks, this is what he is best known for. See the obituaries on him for example[12][13]. Mellk (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The NPOV noticeboard is simply about MOS:LABEL. There is nothing there about how the entire lead should look. And you did not notify me about this discussion so I am not sure why you are surprised I was not "more involved". Mellk (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have explicitly gone through every mention and every source that have been provided in these instances and taken appropriate action to either rephrase or remove. "Corrected source titles", means I found the actual source and saw the actual title is not the same as has been cited here. I will add the archive links. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Chaheel, do you want to explain where I have whitewashed? I've gone through all the sources and my edits are completely valid. In most cases there were no actual sources which makes it original research. To correct this a NPOV word has been added or I've found an actual source. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

References