Jump to content

Talk:History of terrorism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeHistory of terrorism was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
May 7, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
July 16, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Informal Mediation

[edit]

Hello, I've decided to take the case here and offer my help as a mediator if others agree. I have no prior involvement in this article, and I don't believe I have any significant involvement of the editors involved in the dispute occurring in this article. Because the dispute is restricted to a single article, for the sake of transparency and convenience I'd like to discuss matters on this talk page, unless anyone objects.

What's needed is a list of people involved. Tcncv made the request for mediation but listed a number of people who may or may not be interested in the process. So I would like to see who would wish to participate in the mediation, and whether or not anyone objects to having mediation at all. Feel free to respond here at this talk page, thank you. -- Atama頭 23:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing the mediation request. Haberstr showed interest in participating, but Sherzo has yet to respond and has since edited both on the main article space and the talk page here. Mediation requires more than one person. -- Atama頭 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masonry

[edit]

Many historical books talks about terrorist attacks performed by masons (for example, against Church, or between masons, like terrorism against Napoleon by francmasons) Anyone knows anything about it? Can be masons be considers terrorist?--Ssigfrrido (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Dynamite' not mentioned in article

[edit]

As noted in the comments above, the invention of dynamite and its subsequent by revolutionaries transformed 'terrorism' fundamentally in the late 19th century. But the word is not in the article (except in current footnote 31). Somebody feel free to input a comment, possibly in the introduction of '19th century terrorism'.Haberstr (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent point i believe you removed the section on the 19th century terrorists that used in was it catalonia? I do enjoy how you edit the article, then later find fault with those edits, its wonderfully constructive! Sherzo (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another lie. Please research your aspersions before you publish them. Also, please imitate me and improve the 'History of Terrorism' article rather than spending all your time on the discussion page resisting rational change or attacking people making positive changes. For example, the article needs to be condensed and your contribution on this page in that regard is consistently to attack all fair-minded ideas for doing so.Haberstr (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, calling decent editors liars smooth move, also if all editors imitated you rather than resisted wikipedia would be truly lost and of no use to any rational human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. anonymous right winger is back again. I called the statements about me lies. Do you understand the distinction between what I said and your attack?Haberstr (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to dynamite to the introductory section on 19th century terrorism and to the Narodnaya article. These have been erased in the latest revert.Haberstr (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected (again)

[edit]

...for one week, in the hopes of heading off the revert-war that seems to be erupting again. EyeSerenetalk 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock-puppet

[edit]

There appears to be a very close similarity in disruptive 'style' and POV from a number of IPs and at least one blocked registered User at this article. Could someone more familiar with the process please initiate an investigation. Cheers. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three month edit block on new accounts and IP addresses

[edit]

To stop uncivil comments and a slow revert war between an anonymous user and other editors, I am imposing a three month block on this article for new accounts and editors who use IP addresses. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#History of terrorism for more details on this. --PBS (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One month block 2009-12-12

[edit]
As the slow revert war is continuing I have protected the article for a month. There was a mediation case on this Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism that was not followed. I will talk to User:Atama and ask him/her to reopen it. As an indication of good faith I suggest strongly that those who are reverting this page take advantage of the dispute resolution process. --PBS (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm totally open to doing the mediation (I just recently finished a different case). I can reopen this case (anyone can, actually) but I wanted to see which editors want to participate in the mediation. -- Atama頭 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As before, I'm fine with dispute resolution and any reasonable compromise. (I think what I've contributed in the body of History of Terrorism shows a willingness to be inclusive toward the 'other side' in this dispute.) Hope it works.Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Sherzo reverted to his/her preferred version and made one more edit on 10 December 2009, (s)he has made no other edit and as the previous edit that User:Sherzo made was a similar revert on the 6 November. It seems that User:Sherzo is not around very much. It is not desirable to keep this page protected for months (which given User:Sherzo's recent editing history would be necessary to resolve this conflict), I am going to remove full protection and put the protection back to semi-protection.

Further to this decision, I have left a message at User talk:Sherzo informing User:Sherzo that he/she must engage in the WP:dispute resolution process and not revert this page without doing so. As User:Sherzo may not come back to look at his/her talk page for several more weeks I would ask you User:Atama to be patient and allow the mediation request to stay open until such time as User:Sherzo edits Wikipedia again, so that we can see if (s)he wishes to take part in mediation. -- PBS (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll reopen the case shortly, it seems to me that the principle disputants here are Sherzo and Haberstr, and if Sherzo agrees to the mediation we can proceed with anyone else dropping in who wants to. I'll make note of this in the case. If it takes weeks for that to happen it's not a problem for me. -- Atama頭 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having doubts about this mediation based on Sherzo's message on my talk page. Sherzo has declared that Haberstr is a vandal and that their only interest in this article is to revert Haberstr's edits. Frankly, I think that rather than mediation, Sherzo should be strongly encouraged to not edit this article if they have no productive interest in it. This seems more like a user conduct problem than a content dispute. -- Atama頭 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When User:Sherzo made his/her last edit to this page (s)he also filed an WP:ANI against me and as you say left a message on your talk page. Given these two actions I consider the edit to be disruptive and I am going to revert it. I think it is a better alternative to leaving the page indefinitely protected. If User:Sherzo reverts again without engaging in good faith conflict resolution, given the comment placed on your page,[1] I will block his/her account. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
user:Sherzo was blocked for this edit because user:Sherzo reverted to a version preferred by user:Sherzo ignoring warnings to use the dispute resolution process. I have reverted that edit. This is an administrative reversal, and should not be taken that I endorse or approve of the current version. -- PBS (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I think it's quite possible they won't even notice notice a 24-hour block, but I didn't want to go straight to indef. However, a long block would be my inclination should they revert again. EyeSerenetalk 12:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBS please you actions have long presented your bias please don't be so disengenious as to present yourself as coming to the article with clean hands, as you took no such action against haberstr reverts. Perhaps a community Peer review by experts would be the best way to settle this. If such a review feels that Haberstr version is the better article over the consensus version then I would leave at such judgement, but i am no confident no group of experts or academics would come to such a conclusion. Sherzo (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherzo. You have been asked repeatedly to use the dispute resolution resolution process. Haberstr has shown willingness to go down that path (so until you engage in that process you can not expect anyone to have much sympathy with your actions even if they disapprove of the current content of the article). The blocks that you are incurring will get longer unless you stop reverting without first following the dispute resolution process. The blocks are not to punish you but encourage you to use the process, if you do so and initiate an RFC, there is no reason why you can not place requests on the talk pages of various appropriate projects to request that experts review the article contents. -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

I think that the definition section as it is today is not satisfactory for an article on the history of terrorism.

My thinking is that Bruce Hoffman, "a well-known scholar" wrote about the changing definition of what terrorism has meant and been used by different generations. Hence a source from a specific time in history may describe an attack as a terrorist attack, when using today's current common usage it would be no such thing, and vice versa.

I also think mention needs to be made that the further back in history one goes the more difficult it is to use modern terms that have evolved over time, to categorise the actions of people from previous eras. Think of it like war crimes, we do not accuse a commander of a previous era of committing a war crime, if what they did was acceptable under the law of war at that time, although today it would be. For example de Santa Anna is not considered a war criminal for declaring no quarter for the defenders of the Alamo when they refused to his offer to surrender, because although a war crime today it was accepted practice at the time.

Another problem which occurs in this area, is one has to be aware of the attitudes of the protagonists. If take for example the shackling of POWs in World War II by the British and the Germans, both side claimed that they were only doing it in retaliation, and Lex talionis has long been an acceptable if unfortunate part of the laws of war. Likewise in the absence of positive laws, the actions which might seem like a terrorist act have to weighed against the actions of the other side of a conflict. -- PBS (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PBS, ideally WP should contain a "history of the definition (or concept) of terrorism" either in this article or in definition of terrorism. You are indeed right in saying that "terrorism" is a historically grounded term that has evolved. If you look at the history of this article, however, you will find that some previous editors did not seek to create a history of the definition of terrorism but rather a "working definition of terrorism" in order to choose which incidents and groups to include in this article ( See: Talk:History of terrorism/Archive 5#Definition and terminology section ). Since it is unwise trying to synthetisize a definition, the end result was a rather poor list of definitions. My intention was to harmonize this article with what we have in terrorism and in definition of terrorism. Eventually, it would be interesting seeing this subsection evolving into a real "history of the definition". In the meantime, this is the best we have.
The purpose of the list was and is, of course, not to synthesize a definition, but to indicate clearly that there are a diversity of definitions and a lack of consensus. Also, the 'definition' section here should not be a 'history of the definition' section, but a section indicating as best we can what this history is about. Please feel free, though, to go ahead and harmonize the terrorism and definition of terrorism WP articles with this one as it is written now. Doing so would make both far less U.S./Eurocentric and more reflective of the consensus that there is no agreed meaning for the term.Haberstr (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will refrain myself from commenting on your interesting examples on the laws of war since it might take us rather far away from the issues at hand. Cheers! -- Bonifacius 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition section it replaced was succinct and featured a diversity of proposed definitions, without 'privileging' any country's or ideology's preferred version. The section now is exceptionally U.S./U.K. security establishment centric. Also, there already is an entire 'definition of terrorism' wikipedia entry, so -- in an article that is already too long -- I think we should return to the earlier diverse and succinct definition section. By the way, what exactly is your difficulty with the earlier diversity of definitions? I don't get a sense of what was wrong with it, from what you have written.Haberstr (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

socially constructed so break out by perspective

While the term terrorism can be define objectively, by definition the the definition of specific acts of violence as terrorism are socially constructed. So, why not accept the fact and break out the examples by perspective? With a clear statement of the perspective in the section?

Dchoriki (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that way of doing it is that normally the person who makes the statement that so and so doing such and such are terrorists, is that they do not qualify their use of "terrorist" with "according to the definition put forwards by ....". If this article does that then it is committing a WP:SYN. -- PBS (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder Plot & Sons of Liberty off-topic and misleading

[edit]

There are many events throughout world history that could be understood as terrorism by one of the well over 100 definitions. The problems with the Gunpowder Plot as an instructive example are many, and, well, the Sons of Liberty . . . So very very Anglo-American centric. In any case, I'm trying to get the article under 110K in length, that's my main motivation for eliminating the section devoted to these two topics. They are still prominently referenced and linked (to their wikipedia main articles) in the introductory paragraph of the 'pre-reign of terror' 'terrorism' section.Haberstr (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gunpowder plot would be a more notable historic example than the reign of terror, and niether are off topic nor misleading Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe problems with the article

[edit]

The quality of these article has nose dived. It has primarily become one editor's soapbox and this is very bad has it has become extremely POV to that editors opinions. I have read a few books on terrorism almost all that deal with it's history mention the gunpowder plot few dealt with the reign of terror then only in passing and none dealt with terror bombing and the horrendous acts of the soviet and nazis regimes, if the acts of states are to be included why aren't the Roman decimations included or Cromwell wrath upon Ireland or the 30 years war or the spanish inquistion? all wars can be considered acts of terrorism since people are terrorised in them. As such their inclusion is at best Original research at worst the soapbox POV of one editor who treats the article as his own property, driving out all those who disagree with them, So the article no longer reflects any sort of consensus thinking. The quality of writing on much of the article is now much poorer especially the introduction. Weasel words have sprang up and sourced statements have been deleted with no explanation.

This article should be of much higher quality as it deals with important and controvesial issues and hopefully by tagging it this we attracted the attention of better editors than I who can move it back onto the right track or at the very least warn the readers of the severe problems the article suffers from. Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the account User:Capt Jack Doicy has been blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capt Jack Doicy/Archive#Clerk.2C patrolling admin and checkuser comments -- PBS (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table of non-state groups accused of terrorism

[edit]

The table column for the person or organisation making the accusation is missing! Any entry without an accuser should be removed, as it is otherwise an Wikipedia editorial POV list. -- PBS (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire table should be removed, seems to be duplication and very poorly edited. But I guess some people like tables, so I will leave it be.Haberstr (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'accused by' column, but it's empty so far.Haberstr (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "propaganda of the deed" theory and Carlo Pisacane

[edit]

We need a brief section on this important theory and its leading theorist. The story of 'terrorist' theory is generally neglected in this article.Haberstr (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added one.Haberstr (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of terror organized chronologically & by region rather than by 'group'

[edit]

See [2]. Are there any objections to doing things this way? I think it would vastly reduce the glaring (but implicit) POV of naming some groups in subsection titles but altogether ignoring other groups accused of terrorism. I also feel that the focus on 'terrorist groups' is misleading, as many of the groups cited in the history warrant multiple identifying adjectives preceding the word 'group' (in addition to the words 'alleged terrorist').Haberstr (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate a little? Not entirely sure what it is you are proposing. RashersTierney (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the link. The primary organizing pattern would be chronological, and the secondary one would be regioinal. There would be no more 'group name' sub-categories, or they would be a third-level organizing pattern. I think this would better reduce the POV-ishness of 'labeling' a group as 'terrorist'.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Go for it. RashersTierney (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also eliminated sentences about Operation Gladio, as that involves tentative guerilla warfare planning, which doesn't seem to be terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing undue weight given 'Palestinian terrorism' entries in mid-September 2010

[edit]

Please read the following from WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."Haberstr (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about Hab.

These summaries aren't helping your editor image:

I've experienced and been complicit in combative editing before but this is too obvious too ignore. You have taken these same beliefs to Hezbollah and Hamas, removing content you dislike as "anti-Hamas" or "anti-Hezbollah" or ambiguous claims of "POV."

I don't think any uninvolved editor will look at this history and say editors have been assuming good faith. Removing entire pages of cited content with limited and hyperbolic rationales doesn't paint a credible portrait. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am too concerned about this trend. The deleted information was not "Anti-<whatever> POV" , rather it is factual information with impeccable reliable sources. Notable facts cannot be considered "POV". Censorship of relevant facts is not the correct way to achieve due weight. One example is Haberstr's censorship of the entire existence of Black Hand led by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, making a false impression that the Jewish groups were the only ones involved in terrorism in Mandate Palestine, and ignoring the entire subsequent 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. On what grounds could this deletion be justified? Marokwitz (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd indeed. The Jewish militant movements in Palestine were irrelevant compared to the violence instigated by Arab parties during the revolts. I don't know how else to clean this up because Hab continues edit over poor edits again and again. I don't think we can simply revert back to a more neutral state. I freaking hate enforcement boards, but if someone wants to open an RFC, dispute resolution or call in in admin I wouldn't object. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that according to ArbCom ruling, Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. Marokwitz (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much interest in trying to deal with Hab's....unique-style of editing. I don't think he is ever going to change his ways without some sort of intervention. The article should be restored to a more neutral state sooner rather than later. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, although I would still hope for participation by additional editors, it appears we have near unanimous agreement. Will go forward to restore the deleted information. Of course the door is open for additional discussion here on a point by point basis. Marokwitz (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 11

[edit]

Why is no mention made of Jehovah's slaughter of Egypt's newborn (Exodus chapter 11) as a means of coercing the Pharaoh? Yes, it may not be true; but many believe it. And yes, this act is said to have been perpetrated by a supernatural being, rather than men; but it is still a "historical" example of terrorism that not only sets a paradigm -- if true it is certainly the largest act of terrorism of all time.189.38.128.8 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

[edit]

I think the article needs to be carefully gone over to back sure the wording is balanced as terrorist is a loaded term, I appreciate it's difficult to talk about a subject that in and of itself is loaded, but at points the article is unbalanced and can present however unintentionally the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incosistencies in style

[edit]

In one section a attack is listed geographically as the victim, Canadian plane being destroyed is cited as North America how the 9/11 attacks are listed as middle east because that is were the terrorists were based. This should be standardised as one style or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect 2010 consensus version of History of Terrorism

[edit]

The gist of that consensus is that the "U.S." definition of terrorism is not the controlling definition. Many scholars believe that definition is an "easy way out" definition that makes it nearly impossible for governments to be guilty of terrorism. I understand the need to recognize that the "U.S." definition has great weight, but it should not preclude a more diverse history, including (of course) the revolutionary terror in France that generated the term terrorism. Origins matter, and the diverse usage of a term matters, especially for one with a fundamentally disputed meaning.Haberstr (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why it looks incredibly bad, and was vastly improved over the following 3 years. Perhaps you should be less precious about your work, accept others can make improvements and that your viewpoint is quite biased to a certain political agenda, e.g that area affect bombing is the same as terrorism.

The only thing certain in the universe is change, learn to embrace it, rather than by like King Canute and try and turn back a tide of improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.208.103 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early history of terrorism ignored

[edit]

The first action of terrorism was, in light of Quran and Bible, was of Qaabil. He killed Haabil. Pharoahs were also terrorist, and those who tries to hang Prophet Isa(a.s) Then their is a long history till Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). The largest terrorist in the History of Islam was Umer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.45.177.202 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the lead

[edit]

User:Avocats your change to the lead, moves the lead away from the guidance in MOS:LEAD. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My effort was to follow the guidance in MOS:LEAD. It seemed to me that before attempting a history of terrorism, the definition of the term must be addressed, even in the lead. Avocats (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is meant to be a summary of the content of the article. and that definition is not. A more appropriate place to put such definitions would be in a subsection.
As can be seen from definitions of Terrorism there is no agreed definition of the term and yet you are selecting one of many for this article. The definition you have put in place relies on "criminal", but states can define all sorts of things as crimes (and usually define their own actions as not being crimes). This means that the UN definition you have chosen (one agreed by states) by and large defines terrorism as an action by a NGO and not a state. To show you how limited that POV is, take for example the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior a crime in New Zealand but not in France. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring state entities to the historical narrative

[edit]

There is seeming consensus that we want to allow into this history the perspective that some scholars label state groups and not just non-state groups as terrorist. However, I have just had to restore again the sections on Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, and the alleged terror bombing (Guernica, Nanking, etc.) practiced in the run up to and during WWII. If we agree that there is no world consensus view that terrorism can only be practiced by non-state groups, then the narrative should include at least the very prominent representatives of state terror. Nazi Germany? Stalinist Russia? Those two regimes more than qualify. I also think the 'Rape of Nanking' should be included in the history somewhere.Haberstr (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By and large it is a mistake to include warfare in such a narrative, as by its very nature one of the aims of war is to demoralise an enemy, and a counter propaganda term for such demoralisation is terrorism (we demoralise their population, they terrorise ours). The issue is not one of whether an act terrorises an enemy, but whether the act is a breach of the laws of war and that is beyond the scope of this article. That is not to say that crimes committed against a state's own population while the state is at war can not be mentioned as those types of crimes are not war crimes (see the exclusion of Nazi persecutions against their own people at Nuremberg but the inclusion of those from other nationalities as an example of this). -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we can compromise by including only entries that conform either to the modern 'non-state' definition or to the original, 'Jacobin' definition of terrorism, i.e., the systematic practice of terror to maintain control and especially to suppress opposition to a regime. In that sense, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, and the original Jacobin Reign of Terror are in, but bombardment and other violent acts during war, including the WW II resistance actions, are out.Haberstr (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of intro section

[edit]

This has long been a problem with the article. What do you think?? My expansion looks like this, and I know we still need to attach references, which can be found in the main body of the article:

The history of terrorism is a history of well-known and historically significant individuals, entities, and incidents associated, whether rightly or wrongly, with terrorism. Scholars agree that terrorism is a disputed term, and very few of those labelled terrorists describe themselves as such. It is common for opponents in a violent conflict to describe the other side as terrorists or as practicing terrorism.[1]

Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st century Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, which assassinated collaborators with Roman rule in the province of Judea, was in fact terrorist. The first use in English of the term 'terrorism' occurred during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, when the Jacobins, who ruled the revolutionary state, employed violence, including mass executions by guillotine, to compel obedience to the state and intimidate regime enemies. The association of the term only with state violence and intimidation lasted until the mid-19th century, when it began to be associated with non-governmental groups. Anarchism, often in league with rising nationalism and anti-monarchism, was the most prominent ideology linked with terrorism. Near the end of the 19th century, anarchist groups or individuals committed assassinations of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President.

In the 20th century terrorism continued to be associated with a vast array of anarchist, socialist, fascist and nationalist groups, many of them engaged in 'third world' anti-colonial struggles. Some scholars also labeled as terrorist much of the internal violence and intimidation practiced by Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Increasingly, however, as the century neared its end, the United States and other Western powers pushed for a consensus definition of 'terrorism' that would largely or completed exclude state entities.Haberstr (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rigby

[edit]

Just to clarify, the killers of Lee Rigby have been convicted for murder. That is how reliable sources describe it, and, as per WP:BLPCRIME, that is how it is to be described in Wikipedia. Please could the IP who thinks otherwise realise that all edits need to be substantiated by such reliable sources, and not by personal opinion which violates WP:OR. Alfietucker (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all terrorists called murderers and convicted of such by the states they fight? The fighters in the IRA have frequently been referred to and convicted as such by the British as well. Is the difference in treatment because the IRA fighters are white christians, whilst these "murderers" Black Muslims? Did they only target a soldier? surely the killing of soldier in war is never considered murder? So it should reflect that had have neutral language, Wikipedia isn't a British website and shouldn't take sides either for or against the UK and its enemies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.196.16.129 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Bias on this article

[edit]

For one, it only really cites Jewish and Muslim religious terrorism, even though the former is very uncommon (limited to about 3 attacks in modern history), much rarer than Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Sikh terrorism, which for whatever reason aren't included. Buddhist nationalists have burned Muslims alive, why the hell isn't that included? This article is a travesty. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jewish terrorism is that uncommon, it was fundamental to the founding of Israel, and extreme right wing jewish terrorists assassinated the Israeli prime minister following the Oslo peace accords, and it would also depend if you consider the actions of Mossad and Shin Bet such as the reprisals following the Munich killings to be terrorism. If you think Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists terrorists aren't included, then you should add them, I wasn't aware of a buddhist terrorist group burning Muslims. As for christians the Catholic IRA and its precursors are featured frequently throughout the article, probably more than any other group so I don't think it's lacking references to Christian terrorism, but do add more if there are major groups missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.196.16.129 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues because of the last changes. This is a mentoring exercise for a new editor. Can other editors keep their comments constructive and non-confrontational please

[edit]

Monochrome Monitor, I have discussed this on your talk page but we continue here. First of all, you must stop arguing with sources and must check with what they say. You are removing things you don't agree with and several of your edit summaries are misleading. It is really frustrating to spend time to bring up issues and explain how one issue can be solved easily if you just add some words but instead get basically ignored and you keep making changes. I have brought up several issues that I still have not gotten any satisfying answer for. I copy from that talk page:

Regarding the efforts by Zionist groups, did you check with the source? You also said you "added sources", in addition to changing the part about the 67 Jews killed. You did however remove a part about Irgun's attacks sourced to Bruce Hoffman. "Irgun sought to aggressively defend Jews from Arab attacks. Its tactic of attacking Arab communities, including the bombing a crowded Arab market, is considered among the first examples of terrorism directed against civilians" was changed to "Irgun primarily sought to end British rule over the Mandate, which they planned to accomplish through "destroy[ing] the prestige of the British in Palestine" and was sourced to Menachem Begin. You then changed things about the Black Hand organization and it seems like you did not check with the source, same about the British restriction on immigration "at the height of the Holocaust".

You said, amongst other things, "As for Irgun, the assertion that Irgun attacked Arab communities as a tactic is pretty dubious. Mostly their attacks were anti-British". As I said "You need to argue based on reliable sources".

I have not gotten any response about the issue abbout Soviet and Chinese support.

Another issue was your edit around 40 minutes ago. You said "more info on second intifada terrorism per due weight". You actually removed several parts that you explained later in the talk page with that "The parts I deleted were simply not true, like that Hamas no longer partakes in suicide attacks". Again, you can't just remove things like that. If they are wrong, bring sources that shows that. If there are another view of that, bring sources for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


1. The part about Irgun doesn't match most other sources, which state that the Irgun mainly carried out attacks against the British. This is reflected on its Wikipedia page.

2. I'm not sure about the Chinese support. The previous sentence talks about Soviet proxies though, not Sino-Soviet proxies, so I think it's more internally consistent.

3. Hamas never abandoned suicide terrorism. Any implication on their part that they would was pure propaganda. Their actions and rhetoric indicate otherwise. See Hamas suicide attack on Kerem Shalom crossing in 2008 Hamas calling for suicide bombings in response to East Jerusalem settlements Hamas promises suicide attacks during Operation Protective edge. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor Comment Good. Now you are exchanging sources and discussing source content. I believe this is the first time you have attempted this. Keep it up. Remember, a single edit can take sometimes days to resolve and reach consensus. We are not paid per edit here. ;) Irondome (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. That does not contradict what Bruce Hoffman wrote. This article is not either on the history of Irgun or about the history of violence in Palestine but a history of terrorism. So even it were true they "mainly carried out attacks against the British", that does not mean "Irgun sought to aggressively defend Jews from Arab attacks. Its tactic of attacking Arab communities, including the bombing a crowded Arab market, is considered among the first examples of terrorism directed against civilians" is not relevant.

The connection to that "at the height of the Holocaust", the British restricted immigration to Irgun's attacks also needs to be sourced. You also added that "This attack was sharply condemned by the organized leadership of the Yeshuv, including the Jewish National Council and the Jewish Agency". You added a source that seems to come from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html but did only add a footnote that is the same as the one there. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

2. I am talking about the sentence "For example, Soviet and Chinese military advisers provided training and support to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War". You removed "Chinese" because your latest addition, about support to PLO and Fidel Castro, talks about Soviet support. What I am saying is that you could, and should, still retain that it says "Soviet and Chinese" (unless you have checked with that source and can confirm it does not talk about support from China but that was not what it was about). That the support to PLO and Fidel Castro was only from Soviet can be solved by saying "and the Russians supported the PLO during the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and Fidel Castro during the Cuban Revolution" in addition to keeping the first sentence.

3. You also removed "that featured little deadly violence" about the First Intifada. I have also said if there is another view, add it, but don't remove the other info if it is relevant. You could keep that they called an end to suicide bombings in 2006 and add later developments. You should also expand on "Other Palestinian militant groups classified as terrorist...". The link goes to the U.S. State Department and their views are their own. By the way, there is a ref error because you copied it from another Wikipedia article and something is missing from it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor comment User:Monochrome Monitor Now it gets more challenging. Attempt to methodically discuss Iris's points in a logical format. Use any additional sources you can find to reinforce your counterarguments. Keep strictly to the points made, 1,2,3. Order your counter arguments in the same manner. Do not go off on any tangents. No pressure, no deadline exists. Keep it polite and in the spirit of a cooperative dialogue. We are attempting to find consensus by source weight. Make your counter arguments compelling yet sober in tone. Do not make new edits until the above points are resolved. Carefully read the linked guidance that Iris has kindly provided to give you a steer. Go for it :) Irondome (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Will provide additional source.

2. Will do.

3. It didn't feature little deadly violence. But I'll add sources.

--Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confused. Why the hell did my last edit get reverted? It addressed many of the concerns. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mentor comment Get it in your head Georgia. You discuss new material and changes HERE as per guidance above. You are trying to get agreement with Iris. You do not make unagreed edits. This is the discussion phase. Learn this and you will prosper. Ignore and you will not last. You will learn to discuss before it kills me. Get it? Lay out your proposals for that edit here! I'm going to bed. its 4.41am local time in London. Do not make any new edits in article mainspace. I wake up at about 9am your time. Lay out your proposals and sources as per method above here. Irondome (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edits were explicitly suggested by Iris. This was part of the agreement. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mentor comment It has to be explicitly agreed to here by both parties before you go ahead. I'm being tough on you, but it's the way to learn. Good night for now Irondome (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was agreed! --Monochrome_Monitor 14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did some good changes but several of them are still unresolved. The main problem is that many times you don't check or tell if you have looked in the sources and instead change things or remove them based on something else than on sources, often behind misleading edit summaries. Of course I will react if I see no explanation when such things are changed and it looks like you didn't even checked the sources. If you have changed it based on sources, that is fine. So it would be great if you explained your edits in this article starting from yesterday and then we can check with sources. In that link, all of the changes are from Scalhotrod's revert.
In both parts, you changed the description of Irgun and other Zionist militias. Did you check with the sources? What was wrong? How is Menachem Begin a reliable source on Irgun? Did you check what the source (Tom Segev) wrote about the Black Hand organization? It is true that things after named after Qassam but what has it to do with this article on the history of terrorism? This is not about Qassam, the history of Hamas etc.
You made extensive changes about Hamas and their attacks. Did you check with the sources? I looked now on the one about the First Intifada etc. None of this is mentioned in the source so we can leave out that part and just describe it as "during the First Intifada" and it only describes Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as founding it, though Hamas and others mention other persons too. You added from that article who regard them as terrorist organization. Why did you not add the ones who don't regard it as one? It is in the sentence after.
You changed info about Lashkar-e-Taiba. Did you check with the sources? "Islamic terrorist organization" etc. is a WP:LABEL. There it says it "... 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". I am not familiar with the organization but the main article mention it is a terrorist organization, though there may not be a consensus about that, and could have been introduced recently. So things like that have to be checked.
Even if you find a source that speaks about the British restricting immigration at the height of the Holocaust, the issue is if there is a relevancy to "After the British restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939, the Irgun began a campaign against British rule by assassinating police, capturing British government buildings and arms, and sabotaging British railways". Sources must connect the two things. See WP:SYNTH.
So you have made many changes that I see several issues with. You should put much more time here to explain your edits. Instead you discuss a little, then go forward with making new changes. I have not reverted once more you because I am not sure it is not under a WP:1RR restriction. That doesn't seem to worry you and you have even violated the WP:3RR and also ignored your mentor's comment on waiting before making more changes. I think that is bad and you should WP:self-revert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a word. My eye was caught by IRISZ's remark that you appear to think the Irgun's campaign against the British began at the height of the Holocaust. The British restricted immigration in March 1938, before Kristallnacht, three years before the Holocaust got underway. It went down from 60,000 in the mid 30s per annum to a foreseeable 10,000 in the following years.
These articles are intended to be encyclopedic, i.e. anyone from any perspective can see that each constituency is given in neutral words a perspective it can recognize as fair, per RS. There are two ways to edit an article.
  • Do a copyedit, in which you improve the grammar and style, and fix ugly expressions, or correct spelling or
  • Build the content. There is only one way to build content that is reliable, and that is to have before you a source, which you paraphrase concisely, while avoiding copyright issues. If, as IRISZOOM seems to be suggesting, you are tinkering over many pages without a source at hand, and without checking beforehand the reliable sources already cited on the page, you are entering dangerous territory. The reason is, we have no remit to write from what we think we know of a subject. We are humble scribes of superior learning.
  • The only way to add content that will not be reverted or challenged is to adopt a high-bar for WP:RS. That is, preferably, academic sources. Israel/Palestine is one of the most documented realities in scholarly literature: every year hundreds of important books and articles come fresh from the presses. They are accessible via Google Books, or wiki access points for JSTOR etc. Contemporary events require mainstream newspapers, here Ynet, The Times of Israel, Haaretz, the New York Times, etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor comment User:Monochrome Monitor, please read what our colleagues are advising above carefully. You are getting some of the best advice from some of our most experienced and wise colleagues. It's priceless stuff. Please take it on board Georgia. If you can just digest and carry out these methods in your editing, then you are there. Please can you self revert as has been mentioned also. I believe you are quite capable of performing at this level MM. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think Nishidani gave a good description and recommendations. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bare references found and filled: x45, but several still bare

[edit]

The following references need to be filled out by hand or with another tool:

The following reference(s) could not be filled:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28furstenberg.html?em&ex=1193803200&en=62eaa390a911d2d4&ei=5087%0A Blacklisted

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1502 History of Terrorism article by Mark Burgess Processing error (Fetching error)

http://www.berr.gov.uk/fireworks/download/FW1434_Keystage2_07.pdf Processing error (HTTP Error: 410)

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=209830 Harvey, Donald Joseph French Revolution, History.com, 2006 (Accessed April 27, 2007) Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/soe_04.shtml Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/history/domesticmissions/flqcrisis.htm See Canadian Soldier Processing error (Fetching error)

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003082 FLQ entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia Processing error (HTTP Error: 504)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00640066.pdf Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm Foreign Terrorist Organizations Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.jdl.org/index.php/ideology-advocacy/anti-terrorism-racism/ Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/talking-with-terrorists-conversations-with-the-mau-mauhttp://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/talking-with-terrorists-conversations-with-the-mau-mau Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html Statement of Nelson Mandela at Rivonia trial Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf "Country reports on terrorism 2005" Processing error (Fetching error)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11999723/Paris-terror-attacks-La-Belle-Equipe-survivor-so-traumatised-she-cant-speak.html Processing error (HTTP Error: 404)

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of terrorism. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of terrorism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias/inaccuracy with specific cited source and general bias with tone of article relating to socio-economic/government classifications

[edit]

In regards to the specific cited source and what appears in the article vs what is actually said:

Under "Late 20th Century", in the section titled "Middle East" this article has the following:

659 people died in Lebanon between 1982 and 1986 in 36 suicide attacks directed against American, French and Israeli forces, by 41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs who were adherents of both the Christian and Muslim religions.[190] The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing (by the Islamic Jihad Organization), which killed 241 U.S. and 58 French peacekeepers and six civilians at the peacekeeping barracks in Beirut, was particularly deadly.[191][192][193][194] Hezbollah ("Party of God") is an Islamist movement and political party officially founded in Lebanon in 1985, ten years after the outbreak of that country's civil war. Inspired by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution, the group originally sought an Islamic revolution in Lebanon[citation needed] and has long fought for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Led by Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah since 1992, the group has captured Israeli soldiers and carried out missile attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli targets.[195]

The source is listed as: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-logic-of-suicide-terrorism/ [190]

First off, this entire "article" is apparently a Q&A transcript. The contents of the QA and the actual phrasing of the article are a bit misleading. Compare the following from the article:

659 people died in Lebanon between 1982 and 1986 in 36 suicide attacks directed against American, French and Israeli forces, by 41 individuals with predominantly leftist political beliefs who were adherents of both the Christian and Muslim religions.[190]

From the QA:

TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?

RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. "Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians." Who would mix demographics in this manner? Written or otherwise? Why answer a question asking how many Christian suicide attackers by tossing in a single religion, a single subset of an ideology (Islamic Fundamentalism and then says Communism and Socialism as well, making no distinction as to any specifics at all. Whether it be State Socialism or any form of anti-state socialism. His statistics are also incorrect in this context, as he is referring ONLY to Suicide Terrorism.

Regarding inaccuracies/inconsistencies:

In a criticism of Pape's link between occupation and suicide terrorism, an article titled "Design, Inference, and the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" (published in The American Political Science Review), authors Scott Ashworth, Joshua D. Clinton, Adam Meirowitz, and Kristopher W. Ramsay from Princeton charged Pape with "sampling on the dependent variable" by limiting research only to cases in which suicide terror was used. In response, Pape argues that his research design is sufficient because it collected the universe of known cases of suicide terrorism. In a rejoinder, Ashworth et al. discuss how even large samples of the dependent variable cannot be used to explain variation in outcomes, why suicide terrorism in some places but not others, if the sample does not vary. Assaf Moghadam has also criticized Papes conclusions. There are additional references both here on other wikipedia pages, as well as external sources that are credible. One publication actually stated: "While Pape’s books are not nearly as egregious as his mentor’s, he does share with Mearsheimer a proclivity for disguising inflammatory political arguments behind a thin patina of social science which breaks down upon the slightest critical examination.". He also completely neglects to include the 1981 Iraqi Embassy bombing you can see the citations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#Nationalist_resistance_and_religion where they debunk his theories.

So in effect, these random statistics that he is trying to pass off as gospel are probably inaccurate. Regardless of the the phrasing and misquoting theamericanconservative.com has put into print. Also, judging that website, it looks like its primarily an opinion-based blog site.

That's it. Nothing further regarding additional data, except for on the cpost website which uses both erroneous data and/or algorithms that do not calculate the data properly. There is no information pertaining to their individual political alignment whatsoever, nor their religious beliefs at the time. Moreover, there when I use the cpost site (using his data) to check on attacks in Lebanon between 1982-1989. See below:

Total Attacks 37 Total Deaths 868 Total Wounded 778 Avg Deaths per Attack 23.5 Avg Wounded per Attack 21

Also, the word "leftist" appears 7 different times in this wiki stub, whether warranted or not, in most places it seems deliberately tacked on to express some kind of political opinion with flawed data or selective phrasing and/or cherry picking specific parts of the government infrastructure and just labeling the whole thing "Socialism" without explaination and moving on. I have never seen a professional publication anywhere use the term "leftist" when describing people who are left of the center point on the political spectrum. Some of these blanket terms might be accurate (in a very very loose sense) but its dressed up as something its not because its not used within the correct context. Most of these alleged factions/individuals do not have that kind of information available, so I'm wondering what the real source is, if there is one. Oh and theamericanconservative.com back-links to Breitbart in certain sections of their (shoddy) website, they don't have a good reputation for reporting anything other than fantasy-tabloid fiction that is usually a far cry from anything even remotely resembling a fact.

Thanks for reading,

K-Daxion (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of terrorism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The title of the following cite makes me think that it was automatically generated: 

"... eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-logic-of-suicide-terrorism/. The American Conservative, July 18, 2005. Verified 22 June 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism#cite_ref-190

The title is a link itself that gets redirected to the home page of the actual link. The quote does not even exist in the linked article.

Babenzele (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on History of terrorism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism/freedom fighting in WW2

[edit]

This section really should be expanded, it is extremely small in comparison to other sections when it had such momentous impact on how wars were fought around the world. Not only the ideologies driving them but the tactics of fighting a superior force. There is barely any mention of China, no mention of eastern europe.

I'm not an expert but at the moment its very focused on the British and the resistance fighters they organised and coordinated around the world. The USSR's Comintern was equally running alot of (what we would call now) terrorism activities.

Irish history

[edit]

I just thought I say the stuff on Irish terrorism was particularly good and well balanced for such a difficult subject.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of terrorism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Liberation and Eco Terrorism

[edit]

I think there appears to be a complete absence of mention of animal liberation and eco terrorism despite these being growing trends in the late 20th century and early 21st century.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/animal-rights-extremism-and-ecoterrorism http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/902751.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:5E7:EEF0:CC32:443 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Americas: Only includes US terrorism

[edit]

The entirety of this section only focuses on US terrorism when there are certainly Latin American and South American episodes of terrorism. There needs to be a wide expansion of information on this subject. Also, the entire first paragraph does not have citations. Hannahgoss (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‘Greek Fire?’

[edit]

In the section 'Emergence of modern terroism', there is reference made to 'Greek fire'. However, pro-Confederates in Civil War era America could not possibly have used it, as the secret of its composition was lost hundreds of years prior. What was actually used on that day? Taishō219 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_terrorism&oldid=1252296231"