Talk:Jim Gray (UDA member)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Belfast tasks:
|
|||
[edit] Terrorist?
Is anyone seriously suggesting that Jim Gray wasn't a terrorist? Anyone? Ben-w 16:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Not me, but it is a loaded word and therefore we cannot use it in the way you are doing, SqueakBox 16:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
"Loaded" or not, it is unambiguously the case. The UDA is a terrorist group as defined by the governments of both nations in which it operates. Gray was a senior leader of it and directed many of its activities. You don't get more terrorist-y than that. "Loyalist" describes many people who aren't terrorists. Ben-w 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
UDA member is very clear and not POV. You start calling him terrorist and then you have to do the same for Martin McGuinness, etc, so in order to avoid controversy wikipedia uses the t-word as little as possible, SqueakBox 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this discussion is about the previous title of the article, in which he was presented as a terrorist. That will certainly not do. The other title, with 'loyalist', doesn't have that problem, but is too vague (there can be all sorts of loyalists). So the present title "Jim Gray (UDA member)" is a much better option.
- As for the info in the article, saying he is a terrorist won't do either, firsly because an encyclopedia cannot take such a stand and secondly because the definition of the term terrorist is problematic. I believe even the UN don't have such a definition because they can not agree on one (I see the intro to that article has changed - before it mentioned the ambiguity, now it doesn't anymore). However, if he is often considered a terrorist, that should be mentioned. And by whom.
- Furthermore, the general info in the intro to Ulster Defence Association doesn't need to be repeated here (the link suffices), just what's specific to this man. I'll give it a go, see what you think. It's become more 'stubby' in the process, but that can't be helped. Whether the precise term should be 'generally' or 'often' or 'sometimes', I haven't a clue. You fight that out :) . DirkvdM 07:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- For what it's worth, I think that many people inside the Unionist community viewed him as a terrorist, too. Ben-w 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I have reworded it, but it still implies there are people who don't think he is a terrorist, SqueakBox 23:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've just stumbled across this; my advice is to avoid the word terrorist at all. Keeping it in requires all sorts of circumlocutions - this group would probably call him one but that wouldn't, &c &c - and the article as it stands was a mess. "expelled from the illegal organisation which runs drug and extortion rackets" is true, yes - but it looks like an attempt to shoehorn in POV, especially when coupled with the terrorist comment. We've said he's a member of an illegal paramilitary organisation, given the name, which seems pretty much all you need to do; the chances of anyone reading the article and coming away with the impression he's a lovely guy are minimal anyway, so... I've tried redrafting the entire thing; thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
