Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Broken Hill/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

merge this article

This article should be merged with "Battle of Broken Hill" Alivicwil 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

terrorism

This was a terrorist attack on innocent civilians and to trivialise it as merely an "incident" is an insult to the memory of those who died. The instigators both left notes plainly stating that they died for their faith, Islam. 122.104.117.103 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That they claimed to die for their faith does not automatically imply that it was a terrorist attack. While terrorism does not have a universal definition, it generally refers to a systematic use of violent intimidation as a means of coercion. See terrorism for a more precise definition. There does not appear to be evidence of such in this case. Anthrophilic (talk)

So when someone dies for Islam it is a terrorist attack, is that what you are saying? And I guess if someone dies for their nation or a religion other than Islam its just plain warfare? Really to read what you are saying is upsetting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.153.53.201 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that random civilians were killed might have something to do with it. If that's what your idea of "fighting for Islam" is, then your views would appear to cast greater aspersions on Islam than any Islamophobic bigot's views could. AnonMoos (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To describe this as "incident" is factually incorrect and Orwellian. A deliberate and planned act of murdering random civilians, motivated by religious, political or ethnic hatred, is commonly referred to as terrorism. If you catch a nail and have a flat tire on your way to work, this is an 'incident'. When two Moslem jihadis spray a civilian train with bullets, this is commonly referred to as Islamic terrorism. RaoulMachal (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was an "incident" in the context of World War I, as Britain and the other Allies (thus including Australia) had already declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 5 November 2014, nearly 2 months before the Battle of Broken Hill took place (see Middle Eastern theatre of World War I); the Gallipoli Campaign started just a few months later. Bahudhara (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bahudhara: A terrorist attack with multiple casualties is not an "incident" in the common definition and general usage of the term. Only an apologist for Islamic terrorism would seek to obscure the historical facts. Was 9/11 an incident? Were the the Bali bombings or the LeT terrorist attacks on Mumbai also incidents? Are you perhaps an apologist for Islamic terrorists? RaoulMachal (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of "incident" in military terms is well established, e.g. see Amethyst Incident, or the WP Category:International incidents.
Please remember that "Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view". One way to achieve this is through the use of appropriate wording (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, especially the section on Contentious labels). Regarding your comments above, please also see Wikipedia:No personal attacks - these do not assist your cause. Bahudhara (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bahudhara: This is neither about 'diversity of opinion' nor your own perceived sense of reality. Terrorism is a well-defined term in relevant dictionaries of the English language. If this Wikipedia entry is to be of any value other than as testament to someone's apologetic approach to Islam, words must be chosen in accordance with their common and generally accepted meaning. The planned, random murder of a group of civilians for the declared purpose to further the cause of the caliphate is terrorism by any common definition. Unless one identifies with the cause of jihad, this is as much a matter of opinion as the 9/11 terror attacks or any other on the long list of terror attacks against civilian targets motivated by Islamic scriptures.

As to the use of military terminology, a military campaign is not a terrorist attack. The two attackers were not members of any military unit and not enlisted in the Ottoman or any other army. This is why the correct terminology is "terror attack" or "act of terrorism". RaoulMachal (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your views are clear, but there is no consensus above for use of the word "terrorism", and no source that describes it as such, so your recent edit is unacceptable. You are applying original research, which is also unacceptable. Please don't change it again. People are watching and this can only lead to negative results for you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

If you believe this act of terrorism does not meet the common definition of 'terrorism' within the English language and that used by the UN, please explain yourself. RaoulMachal (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 - on a personal note, I do not take personal threats lightly, especially not from someone who feels the need to whitewash terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoulmachal (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Raoulmachal. Pleased to see my alleged "threat" at least brought you here to discuss. But what is actually needed is for you to use this talk page to convince others of the correctness of your position BEFORE you amend the article. Right now you are edit warring and likely to be blocked. That's not a threat. I cannot block you. But I can warn you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 - The definition of 'terrorism' has long been established in common use within the English language; whether you or another individual agrees with this definition is irrelevant.

Your threat was made on a public platform, it was direct and personal, nothing 'alleged' about it. I have not interpreted this as a threat to 'block' me, this would be of little concern. We're living in strange times. Most people don't take matters related to terrorism and apologists for terrorism as lightly as we used to. You may want to be more mindful of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoulmachal (talk • contribs) 03:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I do know that you are ignoring several Wikipedia policies and rules, and that such behaviour will inevitably lead to trouble for you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
We report what is in the sources, not original research that appears to be fuelled by a hot political topic at the moment. Unless you can come up with some reliable and independent sources that refer to this as a "terrorist attack", then you should not refer to it as such. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
The Australian Dictionary of Biography in their profile of Mullah Abdullah refer to this as a "terrorist-suicide mission". Other reliable sources refer to it as Australia's first terrorist attack but these are from recent sources that are engaging in revisionism. I don't think it would be original research to plainly state that reliable sources retrospectively referred to the event as a terrorist attack. Hack (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree, that seems appropriate. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I find that describing anything as terrorism is problematic. It's a massively loaded word. It's used by politicians to push their position. it's used by the media to capture audience share. And, as has been said many times, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Googling "Mandela terrorist" gets me 10 million hits. We can, very carefully, and with very clear attribution, say what some reliable sources might say, but must never use Wikipedia's voice to describe someone as a terrorist, or an act as terrorism. We describe what someone did, and let readers make their own judgements. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Which, if I'm reading Hack's comment correctly, was what was being proposed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Playing Devil's advocate here just a little. What, if anything, is gained by saying in the article that someone in today's political climate, a hundred years later, called this guy a terrorist? I'd probably call him nuts, and nasty, and mean, but that doesn't belong in the article. We have a dangerous, loaded word, one which was never applied to the incident when it happened. I'd prefer we didn't use it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I also see the use of the "terrorist" label as being very problematic, particularly in the present political climate, and especially because the lack of any precise definition of the term can easily lead it to becoming a term of abuse. Regarding historical revisionism, would Julian Knight or Martin Bryant ever be labelled as "terrorists"? I think, probably not by any reliable source (not including the tabloids!). Other modern terms such as hate crime or suicide by cop might seem more appropriate, although anachronistic if applied retrospectively to the Broken Hill case, which to me seems to have involved two embittered misfits with no real political agenda or wider conspiracy, entering into a folie à deux and taking out their personal grievances against the society they perceived as having rejected them. Bahudhara (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism as a concept in public discourse is not anachronistic for the time. For example, a contemporary newspaper report referred to protesters in a 1909 Broken Hill strike as "amateur 'terrorists'".[1] The issue is that this particular incident was not referred to as a terrorist attack until much later. Hack (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There's another article on the same newspaper page (upper right corner - 'Bombs at the Barrier - still another explosion - police puzzled") referring to the same 1909 incident. Taken together, it seems that there was uncertainty at the time as to whether this series of dynamite explosions was due to simple hooliganism, or if there was a link to union strike action, as alleged by the manager of the ice works involved. In the first article, the complete sentence reads: "At first these amateur "terrorists" contented themselves with mere noise and their experiments were about on the level of the adventurous small boy who invests in a "double bunger" of extra potency, in order to experience the fearful joy of exploding it under an empty tin", with quotation marks around the word "terrorists" in the original.
Of course "terrorism as a concept in public discourse is not anachronistic for the time" - I'm not disputing that at all. For the more specific political sense and context in which the word was used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, see e.g. Anarchism and violence or Propaganda of the deed - and it is that revolutionary political dimension which is lacking here. Gool and Abdullah don't appear to have been consciously using revolutionary violence as a means of changing society - they just seem to have been acting out their grievances by killing and expecting to be killed, in a manner more akin to a tribal vendetta. (From this perspective, perhaps the term could be better applied - though even more anachronistically - to Ned Kelly, though I suspect many would disagree.)
My objections to the using the term in this article is that it might, to some, elevate the status of Gool and Abdullah to being more than just common criminals; and it could also be seen, in the current political context, as an instance of dog-whistling. Bahudhara (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you both HiLo48 and Bahudhara and then bow out as I'm really not that interested in this topic at any rate. If reliable sources describe this event after the fact as Australia's first terrorist attack then that seems a reasonable inclusion. Indeed, to not include it means we are not covering the topic in a manner which is reflective of the sources available. As such I don't see any issue with including this as long as it is appropriately attributed. To not do so just seems like exaggerated political correctness. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
All I'm suggesting is a simple line saying that it was later considered to be a terrorist attack. Nothing more or less. Hack (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to mention that a source (the ADB) described it as a terrorist attack, so long as we (as Wikipedia) aren't seen to take a side. I still dislike using the term "terrorism" anyway because it's essentially a meaningless fluff term used to describe whomever the current enemy of the week is, but it could be tolerable here if handled sensitively. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC).
  • unaware of this discussion, I added to the article a sentence about this being the first terrorist attack in Australian,E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support adding a statement about the fact aht this was a jihadist attack, and point out that the Ottoman Emperor (allied with the Central Powers) had officially called on all faithful Muslims to join the holy war against the French,British,Russian alliance. Leaving aside his political reasons for doing so, the fact remains that as Caliph, the Emperor had the formal authority under sharia to command the loyal obedience of Muslims, and some responded, including these two terrorists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of Category:Terrorist incidents in Australia and Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1910s as the Broken Hill incident is very unlike the other articles listed in these categories, which all involve much wider conspiracy and significant political motivation. Labelling the Broken Hill incident as "terrorism" is anachronistic and unjustified. Bahudhara (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war - link removal from lede

An editor has been repeatedly removing a link to Afghan (Australia) from the lede, and just leaving the word "Ghans" without this wikilink. Since this is an Australian slang term, and not the proper name of any particular ethnic group within the region referred to (formerly British India, now Pakistan, or of Afghanistan), this is potentially misleading to anyone unfamiliar with the term. Following WP:BRD, as the removal of this link is not an improvement to the article, I will reinstate it, and again invite the editor to discuss why he thinks it should be removed. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I also have re-instated that link, and agree with User:Bahudhara. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"massacre", "incident"

I corrected the English Language word "massacre" to "incident". The change was reverted. Now it's got a link to the Wikipedia article for "massacre", which inter alia, defines "massacre" as "the intentional killing ... of a significant number of ... people". Arguably, "2" is a significant number, to the 2 people involved. Arguably "1" is a significant number, to the 1 person involved. Arguably "0" is a significant number, if it's significant. This is amusing, but it's not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Broken Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Broken_Hill/Archive_1&oldid=1181389515"