Talk:Terrorism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Lenin and terrorism

Hi everyone, there are many reliable sources linking Lenin with terrorism. For example, Ronald D. Law (a respected historian and Professor of History) writes:

“Frustrated by the conservatism of Russian peasants and impressed by the emergence of a new urban working class, some Populists turned to Karl Marx’s doctrines (typically known to its practitioners as social democracy) in the 1870s and 1880s. Out of the Russian Marxists, came Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They embraced terrorism in a circumscribed fashion while in the underground, but became terrorists “from above” after seizing the Russian state in 1917 … In the wake of the 1905 Revolution, Lenin recognized that terrorism was appropriate in two circumstances: as a means of generating popular support among workers and peasants for the Bolshevik cause, and as a means of raising money necessary for the party’s operations” (Terrorism: A History, 2009, pp. 77, 91).

The above is supported by many other sources like Robert Service (A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p. 108), Richard Pipes (Communism, p. 39), and Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections” (International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p. 141).

Should there be any doubt, here's another source:

“Lenin had stated that the party should not flinch from the use of terror in order to safeguard the Revolution and implement socialism. Thus he was able to justify his use of terror. The Cheka’s powers were expanded during the Civil War so that counter-revolutionaries could be eliminated. Lenin and Trotsky agreed with the view of Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, that it was better to overkill than run the risk of being overthrown. Terror was to be used against class enemies although it was also directed against elements within the party, such as ‘adventurers, drunkards and hooligans’. At the end of his life, Lenin seems to have developed an obsession over the use of terror. Letters he wrote in 1922 called for intensified repression against the Mensheviks, including the harmless historian Rozhkov. This seems to indicate that Lenin was developing his own, personal agenda for the use of terror” – Steve Phillips, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 2000, pp. 135-6. The book is published by educational publisher Heinemann and is therefore mainstream.

I would propose the inclusion of the above in a section on Marxism and terrorism that is also the title of the relevant section in Law's book. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To save everyone's time I can start the edit myself. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to everyone: Please don't fork the same discussion into several talk pages. Please continue it in Talk:Left-wing terrorism#Lenin and terrorism (dubpicated by the very same J.M.). Lovok Sovok (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition and Pejorative Use Sections

I think that this article's greatest weaknesses are its "Definition" and "Pejorative Use" sections, which are both highly related and (especially the "Definition" section) somewhat unfocused. I propose that the "Pejorative Use" section should be integrated into the "Definition" section since it concerns definitional discrepancies (whether or not terrorism should be defined to include positive connotations). Furthermore, I think that the "Definition" section needs to be compacted. For this, I would propose a discussion of where many definitions of terrorism overlap and where they diverge, rather than the current laundry list of definitions. Limited attention could also be given to fringe definitions. The topic of pejorative use would fit well within the portion on divergent definitions of terrorism.IR393davis (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the introduction is a bright example of uselessness, even if it is taken from the dictionary. Come on, guys, use your common sense. This definition ("use of terror (redirected to fear) as a means of coersion) is so broad as to encompass bullying, blackmailing, disciplining in school, etc. Of course, one can say that "bullies terrorize the kids". But this is not one and the same. The words, "terror", "terrorize", "terrorism", while linguistically of the same nest, the meanings are quite different. And this difference must be prominent in the very first sentence. Lovok Sovok (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the first definition is fine. The problems over the definition of terrorism occur because as in the words of the historian Donald Bloxham when suggesting that Churchill could have been found guilty of committing a war crime for encouraging the Bombing of Dresden "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation." The reason the UN has such problems with the word has exactly the same problems as that which encouraged the development of the Martens Clause. It is far easier to legislate against specific actions and ignore the motivation. For example:

As a point of discussion, U.S. courts have had difficulty coming to grips with terrorism and Northern Ireland, particularly prior to September 11th. For example in Quinn v. Robinson, a case concerning an extradition request from Great Britain for a member of the IRA wanted for conspiring to cause explosions in London and the murder of a police constable, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States would be obligated to give safe harbor or passage to anyone who participates in any acts, however heinous, if the acts: were done for purely political purposes; occurred within the territorial limits of the civil war or uprising; were committed by persons who reside there (or, as in this case, had some significant tie to the territory); and, had been used before, “by revolutionaries to bring about change in the composition or structure of the government in their own country.” This decision is cited as supporting the position that any atrocity qualifies as a political act if it is done for “purely political purposes.”

— Zachary E. McCabe (25 August 2003). "Northern Ireland: The paramilitaries, Terrorism, and September 11th" (PDF). University of Denver College of Law. p. 17.

The political offensive exceptions clause, as explained by James J. Kinneally III in 1987 means that all sorts of things that the British considered terrorism in the 1970s-1990s was not considered terrorism in the U.S. during those three decades. If Britain and America could not decide on a common definition what chance the rest of the world? --PBS (talk)

Overall Assessment

I also agree with IR393davis (talk) that the definition and pejorative use sections are repetitive and should be combined (while maintaining a NPOV) to increase the article's overall clarity. I think these shortcomings detract from the article - yet are not reflected in the current grading rubric and thus the article's score is inflated in my opinion. I read Bruce Hoffman's text Inside Terrorism and found the main article's scope rather comprehensive. Sourcing is solid too. But the readability suffers because of the definitional arguments and lengthy introduction that should be condensed by exporting several paragraphs to the definitional debate section. In terms of neutrality, I think this article does a strong job at maintaining a NPOV especially while explaining such a controversial topic. Formatting is adequate. This article IMO also suffers because it lacks visuals that effectively illustrate the content that is being discussed. This article could be improved substantially - although the rubric disagrees with me here - by adding several images besides the page's "hyperlink box" at the top right. IR393.sae211 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you come to your conclusions because I think that there are major problems with lots of sections in this article which seem to use selective papers to advance a specific POVs.

• Democracy and domestic terrorism eg "Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and is least common in the most democratic nations" depends on how it is measured and more importantly which decade is used as a sample.
• Religious terrorism "Religious terrorism does not in itself necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings" Surly it depends on how hierarchical the the religion is. During the counter reformation Roman Catholic terrorism was hierarchical (inquisition and all that) while Protestantism which was not under a hierarchical leadership tended to spawn a more diverse collection of terrorists. One of the problems for the West at the moment is that the Muslim faith has a structure closer to that of Protestant Christianity rather than Catholic Christianity which means there is no one centre of power which can be appeased and asked to persuade it adherents that their actions are misguided.
• Perpetrators "These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed." ???? "Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile" This section misses the point, and tries to draw trends from just two papers (WP:SYN). Yet another paper cited in the same section says:

The diversity of terrorist groups, each with members of widely divergent national and sociocultural backgrounds, contexts, and goals, underscores the hazards of making generalizations and developing a profile of members of individual groups or of terrorists in general. Post cautions that efforts to provide an overall “terrorist profile” are misleading: “There are nearly as many variants of personality who become involved in terrorist pursuits as there are variants of personality.”

• Funding suffers from a similar problem it implies that all terrorist all use the same methods when in fact they are very diverse.
• 'Tactics "Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, ..." Most terrorism is not warfare. If it were then captured terrorists would be treated as POWs and tried for war crimes. Most terrorists upon capture are treated as common criminals. In the case of state terrorism it would be unusual for it to be a from of asymmetric warfare.
• Responses In the case of the Britain since the end of World War II nearly all terrorism has ended with negotiations, yet negotiation is not mentioned. What does "More permissive interrogation and detention policies" mean?
• Mass media This section seems to say nothing at all of any worth.

-- PBS (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you two agree on at least one thing, and so do I: this article is not B-class. I have re-assessed it as c-class. Can either of you go ahead with some improvements? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

THE definition of terrorism (with apologies)

I apologize in advance for my effrontery and Wiki inexperience. One must start with the insistence that a word has a distinct definition, making it a useful word that describes something distinct that other words do not.

The definition appears in the article, but was never identified as THE definition: Terrorism is an act that targets non-combatants, also called civilians, also called innocents.

Terrorism is an act, not a political view or an opinion. There is no imbedded context in the definition. It does not have to include violence. Just targeting an innocent person is an act of terror. Who commits terror cannot be in the definition, anymore than crime is an act committed by a criminal. That governments have attempted to exempt themselves doesn't make them exempt, it just exposes the propaganda of attempting to accuse enemies, while exempting allies. Whether committed by an individual or organization is only relevant in elucidating the target. Acts of terror may or may not be systematic – a single act qualifies. The motive, political or otherwise, is irrelevant to the definition. A man who threatens to throw a baby off a cliff to hurt the mother has committed two acts of terror – against the baby and against the mother. Over 100 controversial “definitions” do not negate that there is one and only one main definition – as for all words. It only points to the extreme propaganda that the word has been forced to endure.

Terrorism must be distinct from all other extant words. It is not sedition, treason, or war. Terror may use the same tactics of war (sniping, bombing, torture) but the targets are distinct and mutually exclusive. War targets combatants in uniform. Terrorism targets non-combatants.

Examples: The crossing of the Israeli border by Hamas, the killing of Israeli soldiers, and the capture of Cpl. Galit Shalit on June 9, 2008, were acts of war. The December 1, 2001 bombings on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem, by Hamas, that killed 11, including children, and injured 188, were acts of terror. Ongoing Hamas shelling of Israel are acts of terror since there is no military target, and the shells are aimed at civilians - even if no one is killed.

There can be controversy, as in Operation Cast Lead, that began December 27, 2008. Israel invaded Gaza as an act of war and killed many soldiers and civilians. If one claims that Israel targeted civilians, then one claims Israel committed acts of terror. Israel's defense is that they targeted only soldiers, and the civilians were killed during war, and accuses Hamas of using human shields – which, by definition, are acts of terror. Hamas claimed at the time that all the Gazans killed were civilians, a claim now known to be false. Nevertheless, Israel can still face the charge of terrorism, if it targeted a single civilian. The controversy can only be settled by examination of the targets.

Interestingly, one cannot use "it was war" justification when committing acts of terror. Hamas terror targets Jews, but Arabs can be and are often killed. Therefore Arab civilians are by definition equally targeted by Hamas terror.

In other cases there can be no controversy, unless one propagandizes the definition. The blowing up of the King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, on July 22, 1946, targeting the Military Headquarters of the British Mandate, by the Irgun of Menachem Begin, that killed 91 and injured 46, was an act of war, no matter that civilians were killed. The target is clear and incontrovertible.

But of course, as in all wars, there is plenty of controversy. The British decision to house their HQ in a civilian hotel can be construed as an act of terror – using human shields. Begin claimed that the British were warned and refused to evacuate. If true, the alleged British decision (an act) can be construed as an act of terror because by it innocents were harmed.

One final example. If US and British bombers targeted civilians in Germany and Japan during WW2, those, by definition, are acts of terror.

Sources: Wikipedia articles

I know this is poor, scholarly-wise, but I am out of time today, and this article is too important not to be revised. Perhaps I have broken the rule of "no new research", but this mostly came out of my head. I plead for understanding, and ask others who have more time to research this. I can only plead for the word. Words are useful tools. I cited examples to show how useful and incisive the word can be when used properly. A proper definition cuts through the smokescreens and illuminates the reality, no matter how ugly or what the political cover-ups. Oneye1i (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC) December 5, 2010, oneye1i

Since different writers define the term "terrorism" we must reflect that in the article and cannot among ourselves chose one definition. There are problems with your definition however - terrorism has a political purpose and may target combatants. And actions taken by uniformed soldiers are generally not considered terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not provide multiple definitions? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Theories of Terrorism

Suggest including an overview of the various theories on terrorism, everything from Lawrence to Hoffman to White to Huntington. I think this would be enormously helpful to the general population, who often see such figures, or their disciples, appear on TV, but have no idea about the context of their ideas. Believe a discussion here is needed on who to include, how to structure, etc before anyone starts a draft. Ideas?Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of term

This concerns the word "terrorist" (which redirects to this page).

I read in a newspaper that Edmund Burke 1795 wrote "the thousands of hell hounds called terrorists" about the terror reign in France, and that the word "terrorist" was in the dictionary three years later.

None of this is mentioned here. Does the current section concern itself only with the term "terrorism"? CapnZapp (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition and non-government agencies

The opening paragraph tries to come to a common definition but ends with "and are committed by non-government agencies" while much of the rest of the article deals with phrasing like state terrorism or state sponsored terrorism. Perhaps instead of the current phrasing the more general "individuals or social groups" be used.

After all, there are many related articles within Wikipedia that specifically deal with government based terrorism. Additionally such a definition is immune from specific national definitions which may in particular simply declare themselves immune from their own definition.

I also suggest the distinction of civilians or non combatants be removed.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

Might be less biased as:

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are are committed by individuals or social groups intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of others outside their group.--Bottomlesssoul (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 206.53.54.136, 10 March 2011

{{Edit semi-protected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-Bockstette2008-23

That citation is a dead link, here is a working one --> http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/MCDocs/files/College/F_Publications/occPapers/occ-paper_20-en.pdf 206.53.54.136 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Floundered or foundered?

The first paragraph in the Definition section contains this as part of a quotation: "During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion...". It seems to me that "foundered" (failed or broke down) is actually what is meant rather than "floundered" (struggled helplessly or clumsily); can someone check the source to confirm whether or not "floundered" is actually the term that was used? And if it was, perhaps a paraphrase would be better than a direct quotation if what was said was not actually what the speaker meant to convey? Or maybe a quotation from a different source? LBourne (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I fixed it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This article omits the most basic form of terrorism.

This article doesn't at all mention that terrorism does not have to be the terrorism such as government-sponsored terrorism and such. There doesn't have to be a political agenda at all. For example, there is a sociopath who lives in the apartment above mine, and, without any provocation at all, he bangs down with what sounds like a lead pipe at all times of the day and night. There is no political agenda at all, but a sadistic knowledge that I am living in terror because I never know when this sickola is going to bang down again. There is no rhyme or reason to his actions. The reason for terrorism is to make a person or people live in fear and apprehension. That is what this sicko is doing to me. THIS IS THE MOST BASIC FORM OF TERRORISM, YET IT IS IGNORED IN THIS ARTICLE.Sickandtiredofitall (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Terror be merged into Terrorism. I think that the content in the Terror article can easily be explained in the context of Terrorism, and the Terrorism article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Terror will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --Martin (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose :"Terror practiced by a government in office appears as law enforcement and is directed against the opposition, while terrorism on the other hand implies open defiance of the law and is the means whereby an opposition aims to demoralize government authority". (R.Thackrah, my emphasis)[1] TFD (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On the same page below the passage cited by TFD: "Others have have characterised the difference between state terror and nonstate terrorism as enforcement terror versus agitational terror. (Paul J. Smith, my emphasis) [2]". In other words, state terror = enforcement terror and nonstate terrorism = agitational terror. Therefore TFD is giving undue weight to the opinion of R.Thackrah. --Martin (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As other have characterized the difference between terror and terrorism, clearly there is a difference to be characterized. So no undue weight. (Igny (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Thus this difference that some writers see is best explained in the context of Terrorism, hence why a merge is proposed. --Martin (talk)

Re:is best explained That is just you own personal and unfounded contention. (Igny (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

*Support Article is a hodge podge of state terror, Revolutionary terror, and would appear to be a POV fork of both. Given we have articles on State terrorism and Revolutionary terror this article is redundant. Tentontunic (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - "Terror" is not "Terrorism". The "Terror" article needs to be fleshed out and improved, and some of its content may be moved to Terrorism - but it certainly shouldn't just be merged; there should be two distinct articles Nuwewsco (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Writers like Charles Tilly state that "terror" is the asymmetrical use of threats and violence against enemies using means that fall outside the routine forms of political struggle, while "terrorism" is the fact of performing said acts of terror. He makes no distinction between government and non-government terror/ism. Given that we have many authors who make no distinction, it is best that this article is merged and the content treated in context of this article. --Martin (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support I fail to see how terror is different from terrorism but the grammar: terrorism is application of terror, regardless why, when, where, and how. And I don't see scholar references which put forth this difference. The hair splitting may be done in carefully crafred subordinate articles per wikipedia:Summary style. The opinion stated above Terror practiced by a government in office appears .... is wrong: for example, Russian revolutionaries who killed tsar Alexander II were applying "terror" towards the establishment, not vice versa. Lovok Sovok (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not base articles on original research or our own personal reasoning. We require reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why Terror should be merged. --Martin (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Lovok Sovok. If you find the quote provided by TFD wrong, you need to provide a source that directly question this statement of this author. Your conclusion about Alexander II is based on a circular argument fallacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote provide by TFD is the opinion of one single author R.Thackrah, hence the Terror article would be a POV fork of this article. --Martin (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not every article written based on the opinion of a single scholar are POV fork (see. e.g. Operation Pike)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Pike is an article about concrete events, not an article about concepts subject to a writer's opinion. --Martin (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Martin it is one opinion and it is quoted as a representative opinion. I could add another source that said the same thing, then you would say it was only two opinions and we could continue this process until you said that is was the opinion of only several dozen or several hundred or several thousand people. What you need to do is find a source that supports your views. TFD (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already provided a source, the very same one (on the same page in fact) that you used that cites R.Thackrah, which states that terror is committed by both government and non-government actors, hence refuting R.Thackrah view that terror is only committed by government actors. --Martin (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment We have articles Reign of Terror, Red Terror, Red Terror (Hungary),Red Terror (Spain),Red Terror (Ethiopia), Red Terror (China), Red Terror (Finland), White Terror, First White Terror, Second White Terror, White Terror (Russia), White Terror (Hungary), White Terror (Spain) and White Terror (Republic of China). Surely this is a significant subject that requires its own main article. TFD (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Article titles "Xxxx terror" is just an idiomatic use of the word "terror" to describe events. For example Spanist Red and White terror articles are categorised under Category:Terrorism in Spain. --Martin (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. We have countless articles about terror in different places and therefore should have one about terror in general. TFD (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Tentontunic In actuality, the scope of the article State terrorism is defined as "State terrorism may refer to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people. It can also refer to describe widespread acts of violence by a state against its own people." In actuality, that article mix two quite different things, "state sponsored terrorism" (foreign), and "state terror" (domestic). Both methods and aims of these two are quite different: bomb attacks, assassination, taking hostages, and other acts of that type had nothing in common with arrests, show trials, secret executions, secret deportations, etc. Moreover, these two type acts were separated in time: for instance, the pre-war Stalin's USSR widely practiced state terror, but provided little or no support for foreign terrorism (assassination of persons like Trotsky or Petliura had no aim to provoke fear, and were hardly a manifestation of terrorism), and even suffered from terrorism (near the Polish border). By contrast, late USSR, where the system of state terror was almost totally abolished, provided a wide support for various terrorists abroad (as well as for guerrilla, which are being mixed by some writers). Therefore, it would be probably convenient to separate these two. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim in the article State terrorism that it also refers to the widespread acts of violence by a state against its own people is backed by five references. You have claimed many times that "terrorism" is vaguely defined, are you claiming now that "terror" is more concretely defined such that it warrants an article distinct from this article? This "terrorism" versus "terror" is just hairsplitting word play, which is misplaced since you contend these terms are vaguely defined anyway, thus the term "terror" it is best covered in the context of this article, since there is no unanimity among authors, hence the merger proposal. --Martin (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

State terrorism includes both "terror" directed against a country's subjects and terrorism directed against foreign sujects. For example, government actions against their own people have been described as "terror" while actions directed against foreign countries have been described as terrorism. Two different concepts - one designed to support a government, another designed to undermine one. And since this is borne out by sources, we can have different articles. We do not second guess scholarship. TFD (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. If "terror" was a distinct concept from "terrorism", why isn't there a separate entry for "terror" in Encyclopaedia Britannica? It only has an entry for "terrorism": "terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police". Let's not turn Wikipedia into a joke. --Martin (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Martin. However, taking into account that EB also has no separate article for "Communist terrorism"[3], do you suggest to merge the later article to "Terrorism" as well?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the Encyclopedia Britannica is missing quite a few terms. We shouldn't be defining our inclusion or separation of terms based on another (inferior) encyclopedia. We should be basing it on the same thing we always have, reliable sources. Silverseren^C 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to make sure. ^_^ Silverseren^C 03:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Terror is not the same as terrorism, they have significant differences. Silverseren^C 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that lists these "significant differences"? --Martin (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the text of it was actually available, I would love to use "Terror and terrorism: there is a difference", but sadly, I cannot, and shall have to use something more concrete. "Stages of terror: terrorism, ideology, and coercion as theatre history" gives a kind of philosophical look at the differences between them, though I think "The reason of terror: philosophical responses to terrorism" and its chapter Terror and Terrorism, A Necessary Confusion explains things much better. Silverseren^C 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can access "Terror and terrorism: there is a difference", and I as I read it, David Forte is discussing the difference between legitimate and illegitmate "acts of terror", where he cites the example of the suicide bomber blowing up the US Marine barracks in Beirut was probably a legitimate act under international law since the Marines were dispatched into a civil war situation. He goes on to state that the primary difference between terror and terrorism is that while terror can be neutrally evil, i.e. random violence committed by robbers, rapists and even soldiers, terrorism has the additional political or moral dimension, being the systemised use of randomly focused violence by organised groups against civilian targets to effect a political objective. As you say the second cite is not that useful while your last cite states essential the same as the first. Do you concur with that? --Martin (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Martintg, asking for a source that lists these significant differences is engaging in the logical fallacy of Loki's wager. TFD (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Terror has a broader definition beyond Terrorism. Terrorism is a form of terror, but is not the only form.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Articles for deletion See WP:Articles for deletion/Terror. TFD (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Merge as otherwise "Terror" is a rather poor POVfork entirely. Collect (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You might explain how you "know" this. TFD (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You assert that you "know" terror and terrorism are distinct. I only "know" what the reliable sources state. That is, legal definitions, treaty definitions, and so on. I believe, in fact, that I provided you with a substantial number of sources on this. I go by what they say, not by asserting that I "know" a fringe view is correct. And a definition held by only one source compared with dozens of sourses is, indeed, fringe. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I provided a source that explains they are different, and you have provided none. While you may "know" what reliable sources say, you still must present them. TFD (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don' tthink merging the two is a good idea. Terrorism and terror are two completely different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.118.138 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose They are 2 entirely different concepts. V7-sport (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange reference out of place and irrelevant

The sentence "WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange has been called a 'terrorist' by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden." should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.190.165 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Sergey Zagraevsky in Definition section

I removed a quote by Sergey Zagraevsky from the Definition section, citing WP:N. That policy applies to pages, not article entries, so that was an incorrect action and I apologize. Sorry!

However, I still have questions about whether or not including the (incomplete) quote here is a good idea. I believe it doesn't belong, at least not in the "Definition" section. When I read this:

Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky characterized terrorism as "the dirtiest weapon of the weak against the strong"

my main reaction was "who?" and "so what?" (The source listed was the artist's own personal website, which may raise WP:SPS questions, too.) It seems the opinion of Dr. Zagraevsky may be no more valid than, say, the viewpoint of <any actor>, <any travel book author>, <any quarterback>, or <any sculptor>. Why should he be quoted here and not, say, Bob Dylan or Karl Urban?

I don't think everyone agrees, so I'm tossing this out so interested editors may comment before I do anything else. Any thoughts?

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

According to his Wikipedia article, Zagraevsky is a well-known Russian-Jewish painter, architecture historian, writer and theologian.` No reason why his opinion has weight. If Collect wants the article to present this POV, then he should find an acknowleged expert that agrees. TFD (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

He may be notable enough to have a Wiki page, but that doesn't mean his opinion has any real significance within this context. Further, the text added is only a characterization, not a definition. Cralar (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote is reliably sourced. The person being quoted is notable. Removal is improper. And the claim that a "characterization" is somehow improper is interesting but valueless. I ask that it be retained in the article absent a consensus to delete. Collect (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:V: a self-published web site of this "painter, architecture historian, writer and theologian" is neither reliable nor relevant. In addition, whereas consensus is needed to add/restore, no consensus is needed to delete: the burden of proof is on you. Moreover, the quote provide no definition of terrorism: it just states that "terrorism is a very bad thing", which is just truism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And an SPS is specifically usable for opinions of the person quoted, but for nothing else. In the case at hand, we cite his opinion. Collect (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Collect, I understand you feel pretty strongly the quote should be included. The thing I don't understand is why you feel so strongly about it. Why use Sergey's quote? Why use only part of his quote? Why not use quotes from other people?

The way I read it, this section of the article should be answering--for our readers--the question: "what is terrorism?" How does Sergey's opinion help our readers? Wikipedia is really supposed to be a list of facts, not a list of opinions, and readers should be able implicitly trust what they read here. I believe the overarching goal we, as editors, must meet is (to borrow a phrase) "the accurate presentation of information without distortion or concealment".

Here's an interesting thought exercise: I want to add the following quotes to the article. May I?

• We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others. Martin Luther King III

• The war on terrorism can never be won. Warren Buffett

• Terrorism has become the systematic weapon of a war that knows no borders or seldom has a face. Jacques Chirac

• Terrorism is a weapons system, ... From time immemorial it has been the weapon of the weak against the strong. The real war on terror is about culture, ideas and perceptions as much as roadside bombs and suicide bombs. Arnaud de Borchgrave

If these are OK, how about these? Each comes from a web site where the author assures us he's a well-known opiner, genius and purveyor of quotes:

• Terrorism is really stinky. Dennis Fairston

• Terrorism is a zit on the ass of civilization. Abe Bernstein

(Yeah, I made up the last two...) My point, though, is that all I really know about Sergey is that he has a Wikipedia page and he says he's a well-known person. Why should his quote be here instead of Dr. King's, Mr. Chirac's or Mr. Buffet's ?

More to the point, do any quotes help the reader better understand what the word "terrorism" means? Please help me understand this because--I'm sorry--I'm just not seeing it. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point, removal of the quote would appear to favour a specific POV. To the extent that the quote is from an RS and respresents a balancing POV it is required to be here per WP:NPOV -- that is the proper way to achieve balance is to include disparate POV material. I back no POV here at all, this is simply a matter of WP policy, and as such should be followed whether one likes or dislikes the POV presented. Silliness using "faux quotes" does not affect policy, by the way. A reliable source was presented - either we allow it in as being a balancing POV, or we dismiss it out of hand, in which case the material with the other POV should be equally excised. Our choice. Collect (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that not allowing a quote from an artist in the Definition section of the Terrorism article is, in any way, POV. I'm against including anything but arguably neutral material in the encyclopedia and I believe including quotes in a Definition section lends them undue weight. The job of a "Definition" section is to define the term, nothing more.

If you really want the quote included somewhere, you are welcome to propose the addition of a "Popular Thoughts on Terrorism" section, or create a separate article. Or you can start your own site. Regardless, I don't believe quotes belong in a section ostensibly devoted to defining a word.

Your protestations aside, it really seems like the POV you're pushing here is Sergey's but you still haven't answered my question, "why?" How would you feel if we ditched Sergey's quote and used Dr. King's, instead? He's pretty famous. Or, how about Ozzie Osborne? He's really well known.

The best solution, in my opinion, is to publish the facts and leave the opinions elsewhere, like an "Opinions on Terrorism" article or on a blog.

And, by the way, you should be well aware the fictitious quotes--which I labeled as such--are an illustrative tool to make a point. I've not labeled any of your writings "silliness" or "false"; such might not be considered WP:CIVIL. Please return the courtesy. You are certainly free to think what you want, just be careful what you write. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. An opinion of a famous artist about history, an opinion of a famous historian about physics, an opinion of a famous physicist about fine arts are just opinions of non-professionals, that are hardly relevant to the subject. In addition, this concrete opinion is not a definition of terrorism. It is just a statement that terrorism is a very bad thing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And, frankly speaking, I have no idea which specific POV removal of this quote favours: this quote adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the essence of terrorism, and, therefore, its removal has no negative impact on the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is a mess

This article needs serious rewriting in all sections. But what strikes me most is the lead. The lead should give a quick overview about the topic and not focus on arguments about the exact definition of terrorism. A short sentence stating that the topic is controversial among scholars should be enough here, the rest can be discussed in the "definition" section below. 188.192.9.154 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

'Terrorism carried out by states isn't terrorism'

That is what this article says in the first parahraph. This is shocking apologism for states. So what Gaddafi is doing isn't terrorism? Why? That's stupid. When France bombed Greenpeace that wasn't terrorism? But if some extremist organisation bombs an abortion clinic it is? What about adding to the first paragraph that terrorism is only terrorism when it is carried out by muslims against western targets? If not add that, why keep it as it is? --95.96.30.170 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No it says that "common definitions" are restricted to "non-government agencies". TFD (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference. Also, where's the proof this is true? Is this just true because of post 9/11 US propaganda? Surely it was never a common definition before that. Really, this is a very worrying politically coloured comment on this wikipedia page. It seems to condone state terrorism.

--95.96.30.170 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is incorrectly stated. We cannot speak about "true" and "false" definitions. In addition, many reliable sources agree that there is no commonly accepted uncontroversial definition of terrorism and that such a definition is probably impossible to propose. In connection to that, it is safe to write, that, according to most present days sources terrorism is the actions of relatively small non-governmental troops against civil population and governmental institutions that aimed to destabilyse these governments and the society as whole.

I do not see any political colours here, just an attempt to avoid confusion. Depending on the type of participants, violence can be classified as

1. Relatively small NGOs against government/society "terrorism" (if sponsored by foreign power, then "state sponsored terrorism")
2. Mass armed movement against own government "rebellion".
3. Armed movement against ethnically different/foreign government "national liberation rebellion".
4. Acts of diversion and sabotage by foreign agents "sabotage"
5. Acts of terror against own population "state terror".
6. State vs state "war".

I do not see how this separation can be considered as apologist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not that simple or as clear cut as you are making out and much of it is a matter of opinion for example

• Was the IRA of 1919 a NGO or a legitimate organization of the Dáil? Was the Dáil a legitimate parliamentary assembly or an illegal assembly?
• Libya gave arms to the IRA (as did the German government before them) does that make the IRA state sponsored?
• What does "mass" mean? (Armalite and ballot box strategy)
• Were the late C20th troubles in Northern Ireland against ethnically different/foreign government? Is London or Dublin the foreign government in Northern Ireland?
• It is quite possible for any politically motivated force to sabotage something not just a foreign state.
• Acts of terror by state forces are also commonly committed by foreign occupying forces. Many have argued that instilling fear in an enemy civilian population is also acts of terror eg "terror bombing".
• Civil wars are just as much wars as wars between sovereign states two of the largest wars fought by English speaking people in modern history (by percentage of those killed) were the English Civil War and the American Civil War.

IP 95.96.30.170 it is not that Wikipedia is apologising for anything, people can disagree as to what terrorism is, but it is a fact that many common definitions do not include state terrorism -- particularly government definitions (and research sponsored by governments) -- as governments tend not to include themselves in those definitions. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. That is not that simple. Moreover, the sources available for me state clearly and unequivocally that no strict definition of the term "terrorism" exist, and, arguably, such a definition is not possible to propose even theoretically. I can provide needed quotes if necessary.

It is well known that this term is being used quite arbitrarily, as a rule, against political opponents, so by presenting this classification I by no means pretended to propose any ultimate truth. It is correct that different movements may simultaneously have different traits, or they may evolve with time, e.g. from socialism to nationalism, from partisan movement to pure terrorist group, from national liberation movement to state terrorism, etc.

One more or less self-consistent definition can be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article about terrorism. According to it, terrorism is a weapon of the weakest: terrorists resort to terror as their primary and sometimes the only weapon, because the only thing they can do is to create the atmosphere of fear in hope that that may eventually lead to social transformations they want. In that sense, they differ from other groups, for instance, partisans, for whom terrorism is just "one of many arrows in their quiver". The latter allegory is taken from (Leonard Weinberg & William L. Eubank, Twenty-First Century Insurgents: Understanding the Use of Terrorism as a Strategy, in: Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century, Forest, James J. F., Ed. Praeger, p. 80-81). The authors, btw contrapose Vietnamese partisans, who eventually won a military victory, and IRA terrorists whose main tactics was terrorism.

In addition, if I understand the issue correctly, the Northern Ireland conflict is not a conflict between one community and the occupation authorities, but a conflict between two communities, one of them is supported by the government.

My post was just a demonstration of how such irrational thing as terrorism can be rationalised.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak

Failure of Wikipedia to produce a coherent or even moderately useful article on Terrorism is indicative of the reason the entire body of Wiki projects cannot be trusted as anything more than politically prescribed. Who benefits from a weak definition of Terrorism? Only the enemies of free and intelligent people. If you look in dictionaries published a century ago, "terrorism" had a definition: a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation; The system of the Reign of Terror in France. ~Webster's New International Dictionary

Two sentences by Webster are a thousand times more useful than the mountain of conflicting crap you've spewed here. Get your act together. Those who recognize the power of their enemies to water down their definitions consent to being stupefied. --Dr. Zacharias (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of WP:NAD to be a dictionary, but rather an encyclopedia, which are for subtly but distinctly different purposes. While a dictionary should define a word with precision, an encyclopedia should explore the nuances of a topic. In this case, Webster's definition is actually too broad, depending on the definitions of govern and intimidation. For example, traffic laws: most people don't speed because they don't want to get a ticket. In this way, police forces are governing your behavior with intimidation (the threat of a ticket). I would argue, as I assume many other people would, that this is not terrorism.

Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive definition of terrorism. It is one of those you know it when you see it kind of topics. Since you seem to know a lot about the topic of terrorism, we invite you to participate with Wikipedia and help us improve the article. We never claimed we were the best; only that we are always trying to get better. Nick2253 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only there is no non-controversial definition of terrorism, some reliable sources claim that such a definition is theoretically impossible. Therefore, Wikipedia just reflects what the sources tell.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, precisely because there is no single accepted definition of terrorism, this article should not exclude any reasonable definition -- particularly not the definition that is best documented historically, which was state-supported terrorism in the French "Reign of Terror". Attempting to exclude or diminish the role of state terrorism in this article represents an extremely biased perspective. Governments have selfish motivations in attempting to exclude state terrorism from their definitions of the term, and news media are notoriously sloppy in their use of terms, but there is no reason why we shouldn't exercise proper scholarship in this article and acknowledge that state terrorism is one form of terrorism, and historically, the origin of the term. -- DBooth (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 3,683,176 articles in English and your sampling of one leads you to conclude that the sample is "indicative of the reason the entire body of Wiki projects cannot be trusted as anything more than politically prescribed". Brilliant. We have an article about that, hasty generalization. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens on terrorism

I am surprised that no mention was made in the article of Christopher Hitchens 1986 Harper's Magazine piece, "Wanton Acts of Usage - Terrorism: A cliche in search of a meaning", which made the argument that "'Terrorist' is a convenience word, a junk word,designed to obliterate distinctions". He basically argued, as do many of the other authorities cited in this Wikipedia article, that no clear and consistent definition exists for the term, terrorism, and that usage of the term, obscures rather than clarifies discourse. Of course, Hitchens being Hitchens, would later on, especially after 9-11, seem to forget all about what he wrote in 1986 and use the terms, "terrorism" and "terrorists" in exactly the same ways that he had condemned in his 1986 article.

JimFarm (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

He was not an expert on terrorism or anything else for that matter. TFD (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hitchens, a British Trotskyite who had lost faith in the Socialist movement, spent much of his life wandering the globe and reporting on the world’s trouble spots for The Nation magazine, the British newsmagazine The New Statesman and other publications from the NYT obit seems to give him strong credentials as a journalist on world affairs. At Oxford Spare time was devoted to the study of philosophy, politics and economics. Establishing reasonable credentials in those fields. After collaborating on a 1976 biography of James Callaghan, the Labour leader, he published his first book, “Cyprus,” in 1984 to commemorate Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus a decade earlier. A longer version was published in 1989 as “Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger.” would seem to establish reasonable credentials as an author on world affairs. Sorry - your dismissal of this interesting journalist is weak indeed. Collect (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting a BA with a C average and being a popular journalist with the Trotskyist and popular press does not make one an expert. The fact he co-authored an instant book on Callaghan and wrote an alternative narrative for Cyprus do not make him an expert either. TFD (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD is spot-on. Thinking, writing, debating and debunking were Hitchens's areas of undisputed expertise. As for exploring various fields of interest, his sharp mind would surely have flayed the idea that a Third in PPE followed by a career as a professional intellectual and polemicist are sufficient alone to confer expertise in any particular area. (Incidentally the quote from the NYT obituary merely records that Hitchens travelled and reported on trouble spots - it does not cite him as an authority on anything. And as anyone who was at Oxbridge knows, a Third in PPE hardly constitutes expertise - rather the reverse! Etc.) Nevertheless perhaps someone can find a reliable source that attests to his expertise on terrorism? In which case would that not support his inclusion here? Writegeist (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear me - vous. The issue only requires whether Hitchens was accepted as an RS author in the field. The NYT obit by itself is quite sufficient for that. Cheers - but your argument is quite at a dead-end. Collect (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RS books by Hitchens include (among many others) Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Why Orwell Matters, Blaming the Victims - Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Blood, Class and Empire, Hostage to History (Cyprus), in fact a long list of books which can not just be waved off as "polemics" but which represent cited material. Collect (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, lots of sources are rs, that does not make their authors experts. Hitchens' opinions on terrorism as just not notable. TFD (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at RS/N in that case if yu truly feel CH is not RS on the topic. Your multiple reasons to exclude him have been picked off one by one - I guess you really should ask there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, thank you for your reply and I make allowances for its patronizing tone, which I'm sure we have all come to expect. I don't share your view that TFD's incisive points have been "picked off one by one" at all. We'll just have to agree to differ there. This is an article on terrorism specifically (and the OP's post, as I understand it, is entirely to do with whether or not to include Hitch's views on the meaning of the word); i.e. not to do with the vastly more general topic of world affairs. If, however, you did understand the very specific substance of the OP's post, and you were trying to address it in your post with the cut-and-paste quotes, please indicate where the NYT obituary on Hitchens cites his views on "terrorism" and/or "terrorists". Obviously the NYT would be an excellent source. Personally I would like to be able to include Hitchens's views if they are eligible. Writegeist (talk)

Fyi: Having suggested TFD raise this at RSN, Collect has taken his own advice. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2012

Thank you TFD. Writegeist (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

International terrorism

International terrorism - redirect to Terrorism. Why? Brian Michael Jenkins: International Terrorism: A new kind of warfare (1974), International terrorism: New Mode of Conflict (1975). --Pessimist2006 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Levels of terrorism

Can anyone define "low level" terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.195.188 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Small scale would be my guesss that or really short terrorists (Undeadplatypus (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

By doctrinal definition as i used it in the Military, low level would be your average foot soldier or Jihadist. The small guy that is a small fish in a big pond. Usually young and inexperienced. Then the hierarchy goes up from there with mid-level then district or regional. It all depends on your hierarchy for the cell or group and how large the group is. I hope this is helpful.

Sdo2004 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be low level terrorist rather than low level terrorism? -- PBS (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Mujahideen terrorist attack, Shorbzar district.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mujahideen terrorist attack, Shorbzar district.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mujahideen terrorist attack, Shorbzar district.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

drug cartels?

I saw a question today, Why are drug cartels that target civilians and engage in acts of terror to influence governmental policies and/or procedures considered terrorists? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they target civilians and engage in acts of terror to influence governmental policies and/or procedures. TFD (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant why are they not considered terrorist organizations. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a wikiproject on articles on terrorism I could join?

One man's freedom fighter (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that writers are more likely to use the term terrorist organization if that is their primary activity. In Wikipedia also, we need to observe WP:LABEL. TFD (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, tkx. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism in Europe

In this edit, a random statistic is inserted: how many people died of separatist terrorism in 2010. Why is 2010 singled out as the year for the statistic? If the reason is to portray separatist terrorism as "harmless" than that's POV. Why are we only reporting the causalities of that specific type of terror only?VR _talk 00:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And where in the source does it say that the total number of fatalities due to separatist terror is 1? I didn't find it in the source. I think we should instead write "Example of separatist terrorism: a police-officer in France was killed by ETA in 2010."VR _talk 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda Usage

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and am wondering if someone could add this for me, re-word it if you like, just to clarify propaganda use of the word:

"However, the title 'Terrorist', is primarily used to define any person(s) who shows any form of dissent, primarily in western cultures, in order to differentiate and remove these people from society.

This may include, and is not limited to, anti-capitalism, liberal ideologies, any promotion of freedom, a united world, any form or re-development of the monetary system to a productive/non-competitive one, even peaceful protesters, or people who use cameras to record any government activity, especially police brutality.

The term is commonly used towards the goals of advocating the invasions of less developed countries for the sake of acquiring natural resources while gaining strategic political/military positions, in order to continue to do this, hence feeding the Capitalist war machine." Antonin Ganner (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not well-suited to such essays.Collect (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The article already explains that use of the term, although you would need a source that it is the primary one. TFD (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OR and Synth

I believe this passage, which references two speech by Reagan and George W. Bush violates Wikipedia:Synthesis and Wikipedia:OR

More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union,[53] yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.[54][55]

This is inappropriate. I get what the author is saying -- that people consider different groups either freedom fighters or terrorists depending on circumstance and political orientation, and if a WP:RS could be found citing this example, I would be more than happy to have it on this page. However, simply citing two examples were two (not necessarily identical) groups were considered freedom fighters/terrorist by two different presidents -- and the only thing connecting them is that "they were two generations of men fighting what they perceived as foreign occupation" -- is OR using only primary sources and a synthesis of the two to make a point that is not made explicitly in either source.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"After all, much of U.S. policy toward the Middle East, Central America, and Libya hinges on deciding whether groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the anti-Sandinista contra rebels in Nicaragua are criminals who should be relentlessly hunted down and punished (along with their benefactors) or freedom fighters who deserve American support." (Christopher H. Pyle. Defining Terrorism, Foreign Policy, No. 64 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 63-78)

"Defining terrorism as the “unlawful use of violence”, for example, forces one to classify as terrorists the Americans who rebelled against the lawfully constituted government of King George III. One man’s terrorist will always be another man’s freedom fighter." (William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000. Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39)

"Menachem Begin, as the leader of the Irgun (Lehi’s Zionist rival) in postwar Palestine, was the first to see the propaganda advantage in referring to his followers as ‘‘freedom fighters’’ rather than terrorists. Afterwards, terrorist groups adopted this appealing description and called themselves freedom fighters, understanding the propaganda advantage." (LEONARD WEINBERG, AMI PEDAHZUR, SIVAN HIRSCH-HOEFLER. The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism.Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.16, No.4 (Winter 2004), pp.777–794)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a connection that rs make and therefore not OR. TFD (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A search of google books on Afghanistan terrorist freedom fighters Bush Regan return lots of hits on this.

how about these:

• "An unbiased look at terrorism in Afghanistan reveals that many of these 'terrorists' individuals or groups were once 'freedom fighters' struggling against the Soviets during the 1980s. ...." " (Chouvy, Pierre-Arnaud (2009), Opium: Uncovering the Politics of the Poppy (illustrated, reprint ed.), Harvard University Press, p. 119, ISBN 9780674051348)
• There is a lot more than this quote but it give a soupçon: ... Links have been traced between the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan and "terrorist" attacks in Algeria, Egypt, the World Trade Centre ... The cruise missiles that were launched against Afghanistan on August 20, 1998 were aimed with relative ease since the United States was attacking some of the very camps the U.S. had helped build and subsidise. ... (Lee, Griffith (2004), The War On Terrorism And The Terror Of God (reprint ed.), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, pp. prefix x–xi (last and first paragraphs), ISBN 9780802828606)
• There is a lot more in this book but here but here is a short quote "Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network thus emerge as a Frankenstein of U.S. policy" (Kellner, Douglas (2003), From 9/11 to terror war: the dangers of Bush legacy (illustrated ed.), Rowman & Littlefield, p. 32, ISBN 9780742526389
• "Terrorism", Historical Dictionary of Islam, Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements, vol. 95, p. 305

PBS (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

All I ask is that RS be cited in the pasage, no two disparate speeches that the passage itself has to connect for us.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Which of the above do you think makes the best source to cover the sentence? -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think William F. Shughart and Griffin Lee give the best ones. I am not quite sure how to add refferences in the above format, could some please insert them?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I cited Pierre-Arnaud Chouvy (2009) as I think that is a more specific quote for the sentence in question. -- PBS (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Shughart, the ref #45 in the article already conveys the same idea (that "One man’s terrorist will always be another man’s freedom fighter").--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism in Syria

I was wondering if there should be a section added about the terrorism in Syria. It has become quite prominent with suicide bombings being a regular instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Presentism

The word terrorism was first coined in 1790's during the French Revolution. The years 1793 and 1794 were called as 'The Reign of Terror' or 'Years of Terror.' During these years Maximilin Robespierre guillotined thousands of innocents. He arrested more than 500,000 out of which he executed 40,000. More than 200,000 were deported and more than 200,000 were starved and tortured to death in the prisons.

Today there is a statement, which is being repeatedly bombarded, especially in the western media and that statement is, 'All Muslims are not Terrorist, but all Terrorist are Muslims.' But here are the historical records on terrorist attacks that speak a different picture:

19th century – We hardly find any terrorist attacks done by Muslims.

11881 – Tsar Alexander was assassinated in a Bomb Blast. He was traveling in a bulletproof carriage in St. Pietersburg Street. The first bomb kills innocent 21 bystanders. The second bomb killed him while he was stepping out of the car. He was killed by Ignacy Hryniewiecki. He was Anarchists. 21886 – Bomb Blast at Haymarket Square, Chicago, during a labour rally. 12 people were killed; one among them was a policeman. Seven policemen were injured and they died in the hospital. The people responsible were 8 Anarchists all of them were non-Muslims. 36 September 1901 – The US President, William McKinley, was shot twice by an Anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. He was a non-Muslim. 41 October 1910 – Bomb blast in Los Angeles at Times newspaper building. 21 were killed. The blast was done by 2 Christians named James and Joseph. They were union leaders. 528 June 1914 – Archduke of Austria and his wife were assassinated which precipitated the World War I. The members of Young Bosnia assassinated them - most of them were Serbs. They were non-Muslims. 616 April 1925 – Bomb Blast in St. Nedelya Church in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. 10,050 were killed and 500 injured. This was the biggest terrorist attack that was done on the soil of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Communist Party did it. They were non-Muslims. 79 October 1934 – King Alexander I of Yugoslavia was assassinated by a gunman by the name of Vlada Georgieff. He was a non-Muslim. 81 May 1961 – First US plane to be hijacked was not done by a Muslim. It was done by Ramierez Ortiz. 928 August 1968 – The US Ambassador to Guatemala was assassinated by a non-Muslim. 1030 July 1969 – The US Ambassador to Japan was knifed by a Japanese non-Muslim. 113 September 1969 – US Ambassador to Brazil was kidnapped by a non-Muslim. 1219 April 1995 - The famous attack of the Oklahoma Bombing in which a truck loaded with bombs ran into the federal building of Oklahoma, in which 166 were killed and 100 were injured. Initially in the press it came as 'Middle East Conspiracy'. Later on they came to know that it was done by two Christians named Timothy and Terry. After World War II 1After World War II from 1941 to 1948, the Jewish Terrorists conducted 259 terrorist attacks. 222 July 1946 – The famous bombing of King David Hotel was conducted under the leadership of Menachem Begin. 91 were killed, out of which 28 were British, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others. The Ignun group dressed up as Arabs to show as though the Muslims did this bombing. Menachem Begin was called terrorist number one by the British government. Later on after a few years Menachem Begin the terrorist number one became the Prime Minister of Israel & got a Noble Prize for Peace. Imagine a person who was a terrorist number getting a Noble Prize for Peace. Menachem Begin and others were fighting to get a Jewish state. Before 1945 Israel did not exist in the World Map. These Jewish group were fighting for a Jewish state and later on with the power they kick the Palestinian out and now the same people are calling the same Palestinian who are fighting for a more just cause for getting their land back. And the Israelis label them today as Terrorist. 3Hitler killed 6 million Jews. The Palestinians welcome the Jews. Later on the Jews kick the Palestinians out of their own land and when the Palestinians are fighting to get their land back they are labeled as Terrorists. It is like I welcome a stranger in my house. After a few days that person throws me out of my house and when I shout out side my house that I want my house back, you call me a Terrorist. 4In Germany from 1968 – 1992, Baader Meinhoff Gang killed several innocent human beings. 5In Italy, Red Brigades kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, the former Prime Minister of Italy. 620 March 1995 - Aum Shinrikyo a Buddhist Cult used Nerve Gas in the Tokyo Subway in which 12 people were killed and 5700 were wounded and injured. IRA (The Irish Republican Army) In UK since hundred years IRA (The Irish Republican Army) is conducting Terrorist attacks against UK. They are Catholics. But are never called as Catholic Terrorist. In 1972 IRA conducted 3 bomb blasts. In the first blast 7 were killed, in second blast 11 were killed and in the third 9 were killed. In 1974 IRA conducted two bomb blasts. First at Guildford Pub in which 5 were killed and 44 injured; second at the Birmingham Pub which killed 21 and injured 182. In 1996 IRA conducted bomb blast in London in which 2 persons were killed and more than were 100 injured. In the same year IRA conducted bomb blast in Manchester shopping center in which 206 people were injured. On 1 August, 1998, the 'Banbridge' bomb blast took place. The IRA planted 500 pound of bomb, which was loaded in a car where 35 people were injured. On 15 August, 1998, 'Omagh' bomb blast took place. IRA planted 500 pound of bomb in a car where 29 people were killed and 330 injured. On the 4 March, 2001, the BBC was bombed by IRA. The IRA is never called as Catholic Terrorist. Today the UK government is more afraid of Muslim terrorist. Today Tony Blair is more afraid of the 'Muslim terrorists' than IRA who is conducting terrorist attacks for more than a hundred years. Why? In Spain and France ETA conducted 36 terrorist attacks. In Africa there are many terrorist organisations. But the most notorious is the 'Lord's Salvation Army'; a Christian terrorist organisation in Uganda. They train young childrens to commit terrorist attacks.

In Sri Lanka, the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) is the most notorious. It is the most violent terrorist organisation in the world. They are experts in suicide bombings and they even train children to take part in suicide bombings. Normally people know Palestinian suicide bombings, Iranian suicide bombing, but they don't know that LITTE are people who have popularized to suicide bombings. The LTTE i.e. Tamil tigers, they are Hindus.

In India majority of the terrorist attacks are talked about the Kashmiri militants. In India there are terrorist organization belonging to almost all different religions. We have Sikh terrorist, the 'Bhindranwala' in Punjab. If you go to South Asian Terrorism portal run by Non-Muslims, and if you see the list of terrorist attacks done by all the people, you will find the Muslims in a minority. But that is never highlighted in the media.

On 5 June, 1984, the Indian Security Forces took over the Golden Temple in which 100 people were killed. In retaliation on 31 October, 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh security guard. In Tripura there are Christian terrorist organizations called ATTF (All Tripura Tiger Force) and NLFT (National Liberation Front of Tripura). On the 2 October, 44 Hindus were killed by these Christian terrorists. In Assam we have ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam). ULFA in the 16 years from 1990 to 2006 has conducted successfully 749 confirmed terrorist attacks. The ULFA will put the Kashmiri militants to shame. But in the newspapers we only hear of Kashmiri militant. Why? The ULFA are trained to kill the Muslims, they are Hindus. How many times do we hear about them? The maximum terrorist attacks, which have been done in India, are done by the Maoists. Only in Nepal, in the past 7 years they have conducted 99 terrorist attacks. According to the Indian Government out of 600 districts in India Maoists are present in 150 districts of India. They have done terrorist attacks in one-third part of India. The Maoists are the biggest dangers to India but yet the Indian Government is afraid of the Muslim terrorist. Why? The reason is George Bush. The Times of India, edition dated 9 September, 2006, reported that 875 rockets and 30 launchers were confiscated by the police. It is the biggest haul in the history of India that the government has confiscated.

From all these things we can surely say that Terrorism is not a Muslim Monopoly. Not a Muslim monopoly, it is not even a specialty of the Muslims. It is not even encouraged by Islam. The Holy Qur'an says in Sura Maidah, chp.5, verse.32, that "If anyone kills any human being, except as a punishment for murder or creating mischief in the land, it will as though he had killed the entire humanity". Most of the religions don't preach that you should kill innocent human being. Terrorism is not the monopoly of any religion.

The human being who has killed the maximum people is Adolf Hitler. Hitler incinerated 6 million Jews. He was Christian. Joseph Stalin (Uncle Joe) killed 20 million human beings; including 14.5 million were starved to death. Mao Tse Tsung of China killed 14 to 20 million human beings. He was Non Muslim. Benito Mussolini of Italy killed 400,000 human beings. Maximilin Robespierre during the French revolution starved and tortured 200,000 people to death and executed 40,000 people. Ashoka in one battle of Kalinga alone killed more than 100,000 people. He was a Hindu. Saddam Hussein killed a few 100 thousands people. But the embargo put by George Bush and the USA alone killed more than half a million Iraqi children. In Indonesia, Muhammad Suharto killed 500,000 people.

This is nothing compared to Hitler or uncle Joe nothing compare to Mao TSE sung each individual will put the Muslims to shame. I am not trying to say that these individuals they were religious. If they would have been religious then they would not have committed such acts. But yet we find in the international media that the Muslims are called as fundamentalist, extremists and terrorists. The American Revolution took place in the 19th century. According to the British Government the terrorist No. 1 that time was Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

Views of world's famous personalities

The President of Venezuela, 'Hugo Chavez' says, 'The biggest terrorist in the world is George bush'. The President Elect of Bolivia, 'Evo Morales', he says that George Bush is a terrorist. Famous singer and activist of America, Harry Bellefonte says that the biggest terrorist in the world is George Bush. An MP in UK by the name of George Galloway he said, 'The blood that is on the hands of George Bush and Tony Blair is much more than the bombers who have done bombing in London. It will be justified that a suicide bomber goes and kill Tony Blair without injuring any other human being. This is type of suicide bombing will be justified'. Former Chief Minister of West Bengal, Jyoti Basu said, 'The biggest terrorist in the world is George Bush'. Noble prize winner for Peace, Betty Williams said, 'I would love to kill George Bush'. Solution to terrorism 1Politicians should be honest and just and should not do wrong things for the vote bank. 2Innocent Indian citizens should not be instigated by the politicians and kill other human beings. Police should be upright and just and protect the innocent. They should not be ploy of the politicians. I know that there are times that they can be transferred. But if every policeman in India is honest, the new policemen who are transferred will also be honest. So what will the politicians do? 3People should not take the law in their hand and kill other human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingf2200 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a problem of presentism present in every wikipedia article. Moagim (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This essay is much too long to read. WP is not a forum.

It's badly formatted, too. In addition, assasination of political targets, past or present, is not terrorism. Still, if the article says "all terrorists are Muslims" in Wikipedia's voice, that needs to be adjusted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed merge with Terror

It should be merged because Terror resembles an incomplete version of terrorism. nerdfighter 20:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree Terror is overtly carried out by governments, while terrorism is carried out by non-government groups, sometimes sponsored by governments. While some may claim that this distinction is arbitrary, it is nonetheless generally used. TFD (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree The page terror has explicitly stated the differences between "terrorism" and "terror". They seem significant enough to warrant a separate page. Recommend more elaboration be added to Terror though. ★ Oliverlyc ★ ✈✈✈ Pop me a message! 07:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree Don't even need to comment on this one. Moagim (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Five Steps in the Evolution of Terrorism

This subject is too niche to warrant its own article, and much of its content is duplicated in terrorism. Andrew³²⁷ 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe that the content of the new article Five Steps in the Evolution of Terrorism should be merged with this article. Andrew³²⁷ 19:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree That article shouldn't even exist. Moagim (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Terrorism is circular

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion."

"Terrorism is the systematic use of extreme fear, often violent, especially as a means of coercion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotoflo (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Fotoflo (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2013

Further reading: Terrorism, Law & Democracy: 10 years after 9/11, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, ISBN: 978-2-9809728-7-4, http://www.ciaj-icaj.ca/images/stories/Publications/books/2011-Publicity.eng.pdf. 132.204.133.195 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Please note that I've changed the protection from semi to PC. Please feel free to request a reversion if necessary, either at WP:RFPP or at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Global terror map OR

Number of terrorist incidents 2010

This map is original research and synthesis. It uses List of terrorist incidents, 2010. as a source, which only includes incidents users have decided to include, so is also bias. Do we have any data available from a reliable source?--Loomspicker (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the definition of Terrorism and the usage in other parts of the wiki

Hey guys. I see that even now (and in the archives) this topic has been the topic of discussion for years now. I invite you all to come and discuss it here in the hopes of later drafting an unitary proposal to improve the handling of this type of conflict in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_meaning_of_words_and_that_meanings_destruction Please use my talk page to discuss drafts if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind guys. I guess there isn't to much interest in changing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.34.174 (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: root cause of terrorism, hum...

86.136.90.5 posted this comment on 9 November 2013 (view all feedback).

root cause of terrorism, human are becoming less spiritual and getting more freedomfrom democracy, I would like an answer

Any thoughts? So? Dictatorship will stop terrorism?

Derkommander0916 (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism in Europe

In this edit, a random statistic is inserted: how many people died of separatist terrorism in 2010. Why is 2010 singled out as the year for the statistic? If the reason is to portray separatist terrorism as "harmless" then that's POV. Why are we only reporting the causalities of that specific type of terror only? And where in the source does it say that the total number of fatalities due to separatist terror is 1? I didn't find it in the source. The source imply says that a police-officer in France was killed by ETA in 2010.VR _talk 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Define Terrorism

Define terrorism; if you can't than the quality class for this article should be lowered because it is not an encyclopedic concept. Wikipedia categorizes murderers, spies, soldiers, thieves, arsonists, and rapists because all of those things can be defined and the definitions are similar across cultures. No one will say an arsonist is someone who drowns people. If terrorism is a real thing we need to categorize it; if not we need to point out it isn't a real definable encyclopedic concept with examples that can be named. Calling someone a terrorist makes about as much since as calling them a murder death killer. I'll start with categorizing Osama Bin Laden; I'm guessing some kind of academic source such as a legal journal says he is a terrorist? Or maybe legal journals don't use extra legal terms. This page is pizzled; it needs to be corrected. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The article defines terrorism in the first sentence. TFD (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Moreover, a difficulty in definition (which certainly does exist with "terrorism") doesn't bear on whether an encyclopedic article can be written. Postmodernism and fascism, for example, are also quite difficult to define but nobody would argue they are concepts unworthy of detailed encyclopedic treatment. Barnabypage (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Category:Fictional terrorists a valid category? I believe that it should be if fictional gangsters is; Ryulong is reverting all of my edits. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

______________

I think for an act to be classified as "terrorism" all of the following conditions have to be fulfilled;

• A public, peaceful and unsuspecting setting (a market place, railway station, an airliner, a running event);
• The use of deadly violence;
• The targets are human, civilian and random.

This definition rules out:

• Religious murder (the target is not random)
• Political murder (the target is not random)
• Criminal murder (the target is not random)
• Collateral damage (the target is not civilian or is not human)
• Insurgent attacks (the target is not civilian or not human)
• Street riots (no peaceful setting)
• Violent green activism (target is not human e.g. a whaling ship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavernsenses (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The setting does not have to be peaceful and unsuspecting, violence need not be used and the targets do not have to be human, civilian or random. The 9/11 attacks targeted the Pentagon, and al Qaeda has targeted U.S. military bases. Where are you getting your conditions? TFD (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

______________

It seems to me that the word "systematic" in the current definition corresponds with very few working definitions. Googling "isolated acts of terrorism" shows circa 150,000 hits (and this is only one phrasing). I don't think that the label terrorism, depends on acts of terror multiple being multiple, much less "systematic".

Perhaps my disagreement comes from the word systematic itself, which usually implies repetition - perhaps the author understands something to do with "planned in advance" or "premeditated".

I will remove the single "systematic" from the article, if a reasonable justification is not made here for retaining it. 82.224.103.123 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Systematic does not necessarily imply repetitive.[5] But terrorism is by its nature repetitive. The objective is that society believes attacks will continue until their demands are met. "Isolated acts of terrorism" can be systematic, as the term is defined. And even though the perps may only carry out one attack, they generally identify with a broader terrorist movement. For example a lone wolf Islamic terrorist may believe that he is helping al Qaeda. TFD (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

crime or criminal terrorism

terrorism is a form of crime...

not every criminal is a terrorist...

but every terrorist is a criminal...

crimes or criminal acts are... illegal weapon possession illegal weapon use murder illegal creation of a criminal group illegal enter a region

so we can say... terrorism is an art of crime...

there is a failure in the article... terror is the word for "fear", not for violence...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.167.84 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Terrorists or freedom fighters? Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalinist Russia as counterterrorism example

I find the separate section "Russia in the Stalin Era" to be POV. There are many countries that have had such laws. Why Russia and Stalin should be mentioned here? Were they the first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence is inconsistent with WP:BEGIN and the the basic premise of this encyclopedia. Namely, when people come here they want to know what terrorism is, not how it's defined in international or criminal law. We are not fulfilling our duty by falling back on legalisms. Every English dictionary (including our sister project Wiktionary takes a stab at this, so there's no reason why we can't or shouldn't.

I'll add that I have no interest in wading into an extended debate. I'm simply adding my two cents to an intro that has obviously been the subject of great controversy.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I offer a new introductory paragraph. Not that any encouragement is usually necessary, but do feel free to revert or delete if it does not please. The purpose was to offer a something a little tighter and clearer, yet still comprehensive. This is, as the boxes state, a difficult subject, and very much a 'loaded' subject. The para aims to examine all aspects without causing offence. If it has done so: get rid! The original intro para is retained intact, now as second para Protozoon (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a whole article on Definitions of terrorism and so picking any one definition at the start of this article is likely to present a POV, unless the definition given is so wide as to be of little use. The lead of this article needs to be rewritten to summarise the content of rest of the body of the article, and not wander off to cover stuff that is not covered in the body of the article. Written properly as a summary of the article it should need next to no citations. -- PBS (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

UN definition

PBS, why do you feel the UN definition excludes state terrorism? I don't see how it does, and the other definition was unsourced. By the way, your revert undid a lot of other changes I made, not just the definition. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The word criminal. Both the USSR under Stalin and the Nazis had regimes so terrible that some members of the regime shot themselves rather than be dealt with under the regimes' laws (they used to punish family as well as the alleged criminal). States can pass laws that define acts that they or their agents carry out as lawful. Take for example ISIL --at the moment whether they are a state or not I'm not willing to debate here, but -- I am using them as an extreme modern to make the point. No doubt within the area under their control they do not consider the terrible things that they to be outside their laws.

As to you other changes with the exception to the other change to the first paragraph and the addition to violent to NGO, I have not objections to your changes. The other changes to the first paragraph are are addressed in the section immediately above this one (#Intro Paragraph). -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism vs Terror

The first sentence defines terrorism as terror.

Although it is true, we might need to consider that in English language, terror might have some other meaning and not only Terror (politics). So I suggest to rewrite the first sentence to link to Terror (politics). That might be clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear to me. Generally in the English language terror means extreme fear. No other possible definition makes sense in the context. TFD (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Pejorative use section

The word pejorative sound odd in the title of the section, but the fact that it has negative connotation sounds right.

If we look at talk sections such as Talk:Terrorism/Archive_15#Definition_and_Pejorative_Use_Sections, we see that US and UK can disagree on what can be qualified as is terrorism. This does not make the terrorism word a pejorative word, but more a subjective one.

Like murderer or rape, this word can carry pejorative connotation: people are usually not proud and will not classify them-self as murderer or raper, and might argue that they had to do it, having no other choice for any reason... But in those other articles regarding murder or rape it is not written that those word are pejorative, because it might be not relevant to say so. I suggest that it is probably the same thing for terrorism.

When I look at the content of this section, it looks like it is focused on describing how the word can be used in an inappropriate way. But we still do not know what this section means.

For instance, I do not know neither if words such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, are appropriate to speak about 2015 Sousse attacks, or Bardo National Museum attack, nor what views philosophers can have on this topic. But the word terrorism is enough to explain it is a dangerous place. UK use this word to advise against travel in Tunisia for instance when they say «There is a high threat from terrorism in Tunisia. A terrorist attack took place at Port El Kantaoui near Sousse on 26 June. Thirty eight foreign tourists were killed, including 30 British nationals. Further terrorist attacks are highly likely, including in tourist resorts, and by individuals unknown to the authorities whose actions may be inspired by terrorist groups via social media. You should be especially vigilant at this time and follow the advice of the Tunisian security authorities.» I am not sure that any other word would make it clearer...

In same section, we can also read «The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".» I am not sure neither how it matches with 2015 Sousse attacks, or Bardo National Museum attack nor how it matches with 2015 Île-de-France attacks.

Another point which is not clear is the politician point of view: The word terrorism is sometimes used freely by political people, without being linked to a concrete case, while in a juridic context, usage of the word might be subject to a greater care such as with allegation of terrorism against the Tarnac Nine.

So to clarify the content of this section, I suggest to rename this section. Proposal are:

• Other meanings of the word
• Inappropriate usage of the word
• Subjective usage
• Usage of the word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, this section in the article suggests that terrorism has a pejorative meaning and suggests to use djihadi.

Nonetheless, djihadi is probably a worst pejorative meaning as it leads to associate what is murders (at least if it is not terrorism) to Islam, and as such to associate crime to Islam. That might lead some cartoonist to draw Islam as murderers.

My conclusion is that section requires additional clarifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.105.53 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The start of the main quote from within the section is:

"On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore."

Hence the name of the section. The use of the word terrorism to be "generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore". is not an inappropriate use it is part of the armoury of propaganda tools available to the authorities and the new media who support the authorities or at least disprove of the people labelled terrorists (jast as positive words and phrases such as "resistance" and "freedom fighters" are generally applied to ones friends and allies or for those whom one agress and would like to support . -- PBS (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140411134032/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/CIB/2001-02/02cib08.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/CIB/2001-02/02cib08.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929231838/http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=terrorism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score,name to http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=terrorism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926123850/http://dictionary.cambridge.org:80/define.asp?key=82104&dict=CALD to http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82104&dict=CALD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150318094204/http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1328039/Straight-talk-on-terrorism.html to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1328039/Straight-talk-on-terrorism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111230022314/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-reporting-terrorism-summary to http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-reporting-terrorism-summary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221053220/http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.aabadie.academic.ksg/povterr.pdf to http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.aabadie.academic.ksg/povterr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221053220/http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.aabadie.academic.ksg/povterr.pdf to http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.aabadie.academic.ksg/povterr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071030201259/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu:80/inscr/genocide/ to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/genocide/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006073233/http://site.d66.nl/gerbrandy/document/eu_action_plan_against_wildlife/f=/vj7iilz6wlmw.pdf to http://site.d66.nl/gerbrandy/document/eu_action_plan_against_wildlife/f=/vj7iilz6wlmw.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121203100430/http://www.ucd.ie/adulted/coursesbycode/hn258/ to http://www.ucd.ie/adulted/coursesbycode/hn258/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120511140810/http://cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1502 to http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1502

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestinians are never Terrorists

unless defending your damn self is terrorism, then yes.. my bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malekobaid (talk • contribs) 14:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to specific context of Palestine, a method to deal with such issue is that such subject might be first clarified in Palestinian terrorism/Palestinian political violence. Then it is possible to summarize what need to be in this Terrorism article... and how it should be written77.193.105.53 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Malekobaid: Yes, it isn't terrorism to throw stones at Israeli children or to bomb retirement homes. /sarcasm

Palestinian terrorism is real and it is something Israelis have to deal with on a daily basis. Of course most Palestinians aren't terrorists but to say they can't be terrorist is condescending infantalization. Blowing up buses of non-military targets is terrorism, period. It doesn't matter what country you come from. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

History

Why is there no history section? The history of terrorism is fascinating, from Genghiz Khan (massacre one city, and all the others will surrender), to the IRA to ISIS.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091001000500/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200306/hoffman to http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200306/hoffman
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413130138/http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/pdf2008/ViolenceH_F2004_an.pdf to http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/pdf2008/ViolenceH_F2004_an.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

white terrorism (America?) source materials

See also: White_terrorism

Extended content

http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/Top%20Ten%20Differences%20Between%20White%20Terrorists%20and%20Others.pdf http://www.jstor.org/stable/4232730?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/alabcrcl4&div=5&id=&page= http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00483489710157760 Forty Acres and a Mule in the 21st Century - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00555.x/pdf http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/hillary-white-terrorism-and-police-violence-are-just-as-big-a-threat-as-isis-video/ http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/30/3725562/you-are-more-than-7-times-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extemist-than-by-muslim-terrorists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/18/call-the-charleston-church-shooting-what-it-is-terrorism/ white American males to be the country’s largest terror threat http://www.thenation.com/article/how-to-understand-white-male-terrorism/ we're quick to label black and brown bodies as thugs and terrorists http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rini-sampath/tamir-rice-and-oregons-wh_b_8908358.html “terrorist” located as a compressed way to say Islamist-jihadist-enemy of America. http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/why_white_people_arent_called_terrorist_the_media_accepts_that_people_who_resort_to_violence_are_left_wing_or_arab_or_both/ Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists’? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/ He’s avoided it in coverage of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, saying it is a “loaded” term. http://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2015/jan/27/is-it-time-to-stop-using-the-word-terrorist White Terrorists. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/21/1395147/-Michael-Moore-Tweets-Out-To-Every-Racist-War-Mongering-Pseudo-Christian-Right-Wing-Gun-Extremist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potguru (talk • contribs) Do you mean right-wing extremist terrorism or white supremacist terrorism? Those exist as terms. We don't have a term "brown terrorism" or "black terrorism". However, we may have enough for a new article, given that the present one does not define types of terrorism. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Not sure what to do with it... not sure it's ready for an article, but it should probably have a place on this page somewhere. Certainly seems noteworthy. --Potguru (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC) This is a brief article and this is a relatively minor aspect of the overall topic, best dealt with in other articles. It is generally classified as right-wing terrorism, since terrorism is classified by the objectives of the perpetrators, rather than their ethnicity. Also, please consult reliable sources as some of the sources might not be acceptable. TFD (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I originally created the article thinking it redirect worthy. Another editor thought it article worthy, so here is the article White terrorism further discussion on the subject should be had on that article's talk page--Potguru (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead definition

That's the definition of war, or even of a street fight. Even ants uses violence to achieve objectives. Just my 2 cents. Frenditor (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The current lede definition can be reduced to "terrorism is using violence to achieve goals". This is not only way too wide a definition, it's at least partially wrong. Much terrorism is described as "random" and "senseless", implying a lack of direction toward any goals. Plus, it isn't just acts of violence, it's usually trying to create an atmosphere of a threat of further violence. We're missing elements of "politics", "fear", "threat", "intimidation", and targeting innocents (this is random/senseless part). It's also rather blatantly missing "terror". --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point too. Frenditor (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition has improved in the past couple of months. I've just added "terror" and "civilians" to it. I think its okay now. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Astroturfing

Can someone explain the placement of astroturfing in the "see also" section? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not astroturfing as is replacing grass with a substitute as I expected. Reading the article it does appear it could be used for terrorism Cls14 (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure of any time that an incident of astroturfing in terms of "fake grassroots support" has ever been described as terrorism. The article doesn't explicitly mention it. It was added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), but he was blocked for unrelated reasons. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That whole section is absurdly long and random. Mezigue (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you feel should be removed? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it has nothing to do with terrorism. I just removed it. G37x8004uc (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Origin section doesn't define history of modern usage

The origin section talks about the term's origin as meaning state terrorism, but it doesn't say what's important: the history of its modern usage, meaning acts by ideological groups to achieve political objectives through terror. When was it first used in this context? Gymnophoria (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Surrogacy Child Terrorism

Hello,

I added a new area under Surrogacy Child terrorism but was deleted. Can someone provide an explanation why it was removed? Am happy to discuss this new area which affects already traumatized people dealing with infertility and lack of laws in the first place.

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBelongICount (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted this section because it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Mezigue (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your feedback. This issue it tries to address is the threat of making an innocent child born via Surrogacy to be stateless much like how innocent children are made stateless when fleeing war zones like Syria, Iraq, Libya ad have to deal with same legal issues to move forward. Like lack of legal identity, lack of birth record, lack of passport, without proper legal identity, one cannot get into a school and get education, lack of access to welfare and health benefits, and so on.

The UNHCR has a campaign called "I, Belong" to deal with childhood statelessness. The US has a law called "Girls Count Act" to help both girls and boys get a legal birth certificate in high-conflict zones. Perhaps the handle name IBelongICount may make sense.

If you feel these real issues of threat are not "terrorism" which innocent children fleeing from ISIS also are facing, can you suggest what is a more pertinent area?

thanks for taking the time.

IBelongICount (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)IBelong

I am not sure what to tell you. Wikipedia is not really a place to raise awareness of issues in a campaigning sense. It does look like this is a new arising cause for statelessness not covered at Statelessness#Causes_of_statelessness so it might be a pertinent addition there. I understand that this is a highly emotional issue, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the tone must be neutral and the copy factual. EDIT: it looks like someone else (or is it you?) raised the topic there at Talk:Statelessness#Surrogacy but so far no one has answered it. Mezigue (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your sensitivity. The causes for statelessness is a good destination. However, Surrogacy Child Terrorism is slightly different as in one "Surrogacy sibling" is used against another "Surrogacy sibling" and so the consequences are known and deliberate and thus the threat of terror of what may happen to a child. Childhood Statelessness by itself is also terrible but its by "accident" Vs. this is done deliberately much like what ISIS is doing which is driving civlians and children away out of terror/fear. Its not my mention in Statelessness#Causes_of_statelessness but will check it out and thanks for the pointer.

While I agree this is highly emotional, its also factual. ISIS making innocent children being ripped apart from their homes, made stateless, running away from hostilities, no legal identity, being used as human shields, split from biological families is also very emotional but still factual and is called terrorism. Or there are different flavors of terrorism like religious terrorism or racial terrorism or others. The "key differentiator" I believe is the pre-planned malintent to cause harm to innocent civilians is what makes it "terrorism". And thats what I am refering to as "Surrogacy Child Terrorism" where a child knowingly was made stateless for the purpose of taking their sibling away. Perhaps I am not as good with words and you can help me formulate it better but I think its important to make the distinction between "Statelessness caused by Surrogacy" Vs. knowingly making a Surrogacy child stateless to take their Surrogacy sibling away which is a threat, a fear and hostile. Perhaps you have seen the movie Sophie's choice where a parent is forced to make a decision on which sibling to save or send to the gas chamber - its kinda like that. Which child do you save?

IBelongICount (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)IBelongICount

I would appreciate it if you can respond and define how is the threat and fear of knowingly making a child stateless different than what ISIS or other terrorists are doing with same consequences to the child? Consequences = childhood statelessness, loss of biological family, loss of residence, living as a refugee, loss of access to welfare benefits, and so on.

I request a response because this new definition is deleted. Surrogacy childhood statelessness is DIFFERENT than Surrogacy Child Terrorism because the former is "accidental" Vs. the latter is deliberate and with malintent with known consequences against innocent like the acts of a terrorist. At least you owe me a valid response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBelongICount (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you present reliable sources that consider such actions as "terrorism" and say how widespread is that phenomenon. Brandmeister^talk 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Brandmeister for the response. This is an evolving area and due to the "secrecy" and unwillingness to discuss it openly in name of sensitivity, it is the innocent children who are being left in limbo. Citing "references" in a traditional sense maybe dificult ad perhaps some credence can be given to empirical evidence which is what I present here as requested. Perhaps, a better name may be "Fertitlity Terrorism"?

A Canadian couple spent over 6 years in India when one of their IVF/Surrogacy child born in India was not given a passport by the Canadian government to leave India and rendered stateless. But they NEVER split the siblings regardless of "no genetic link" or abuse them by calling them "half-siblings" or as "child born out of wedlock" or saying "at the time of birth" and other offensive words as written in archaic laws. As humans and parents, we expect to show emotions unlike laws. A gay US couple spent over an year in Thailand to bring home a sibling born via IVF/Surrogacy and both the "genetic" and "non-genetic" parents showed up and fought. They did NOT call names like "half-siblings", "child born out of wedlock", "at the time of birth" and did NOT split the siblings. A US Citizen mother who used an anonymous egg and sperm donor but carried her own two children to term and gave birth to them could not get passports for her children because of "no genetic link" but she fought for them for over 4+ years BUT never SPLIT the siblings or called them names. Parents of a child born via IVF/Surrogacy in India had their child's US passport annulled once truth was revealed that the passport was obtained by lying and claiming "genetic link" between mother and child when there was none as required by the US laws. There are several other stories of us Surrogacy children. But parents SHOW UP and STAND UP to archaic and inhumane laws rather than throwing us to them. A few decades ago, in the western nations there used to be a practice of "baby scoop era" where innocent children were taken away from their biological mothers who happened to be single and had "legal paperwork" signed under duress. Decades later the governments have apologized to both such mothers and children of "baby scoop era". We have a 21st century twist and started a "sibling scoop era".

The point above is to show that laws are archaic and when innocent children are in legal limbo halfway across the world, loving parents SHOW UP and fight for their child. One doesn't use these laws against the innocent child or NOT show up while taking away their sibling born the same way via IVF/Surrogacy. Splitting siblings knowingly, using the archaic laws against the innocent children and siblings born via IVF/Surrogacy is what is defined as "Surrogacy Child Terrorism" or "Fertility Terrorism" with similar disastrous effects as children fleeing war zones and high conflict areas like childhood statelessness, separation from biological family, loss of legal identity, and so on.

Hope that helps and welcome any feedback. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBelongICount (talk • contribs) 05:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Published post<re>https://www.worldpulse.com/en/community/users/iambeautiful/posts/70271</ref> on Surrogacy Terrorism, does that help to get the terminology updated in Wikipedia because its a REAL thing. Kind of ironic that the denials we received from authorities to DENY the facts are still being experienced through the community AFTER having recognized by the governments as a REAL ISSUE. Conventional Wisdom would be that governments and bureaucracy are hard to convince but here its a different story. What more evidence do we need? Am happy to provide. IBelongICount (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)IBelongICount

Source from 1998

Not only is the source old, but, given the claims it lacks any legal sources/laws.

Also the dictionary defines terrorism as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Now this article adds ideological and or religious aims? According to whom? A man who wrote a book in 1998? No, no. This article needs more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange unrelated "Intimate Terorism" section

"Intimate Terrorism" does not fit into the definition of terrorism at all. Maybe just deleting, maybe leaving in a see also blue link?--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 02:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Infographics

Hello, I noticed the data used in the infographic concerning "Top 10 Countries" provided is outdated. Additionally, I see no citation. I assume the data is coming from the 2014 Global Terrorism Index or some sort. I would suggest making a new one utilizing the data from the 2016 Global Terrorism Index (pg.27-36). PCulli (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Hello, I am adding comments for my class. You could add in the definition from the Global Terrorism Data Base. It gives a great definition to work with and the data base offers groups with events they consider to be classified as terrorism. You quoted them earlier in the intro, so you might use it more in the article. You could also in the history talk about the waves of terrorism: Anti-colonial, Anarchist, New Left, and religious. With those you could go into greater detail of what they contained and the methods used. And in the tactics, you could mention suicide terrorism which is a new tactic used especially in religious terrorism. Your perpetrator section also uses very specific ideas, even though anybody can be a terrorist.Mistyroyall (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC) What caused you interest in terrorism? Mistyroyall (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistyroyall (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Caileer (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)This article is well written and uses citations properly. The Author and editors have done a great job at staying on topic, while going into extensive detail. Some of the information however could be separated off into a new article on specific topics of terrorism to make the article shorter to read. The article is quite long for a wikipedia article that is summarizing and broadly explaining terrorism. Caileer (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering the Narrow Definition of Terrorism

In discussion with people under 20, it appears many are totally unaware how the definition of terrorism has changed since President Bush declared War on Terror. Originally only acts by militant insurrectionists to kill civilians, such as the Irish Republican Army and Palestine Liberation Organization, were thought of as terrorism. Now people would not hesitate to call Hitler a terrorist because he reigned U-2 bombs on London. True, this might fit in with current agenda in the 'War on Terror.' But in England, prior to the start of the 'War on Terror,' no one called it terrorism, because Hitler was not an insurrectionist. The two countries were at war. The definition of war between nations used to allow for civilians to be killed. But since the declaration of a 'War on Terror,' the distinction collapsed, because war was declared on a concept rather than a nation. By the new definition,. the allies did equally awful things to Germany during WW2, such as Dresden, which should also be considered terrorism. In fact by the current definition of terrorism, the USA's bombing of dams in Iraq during the Iraq war was terrorism. By this definition, even the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism. That is rather counterproductive to general understanding on the meaning of terrorism as it would be construed by people under 20. More ludicrously, even stopping people going to the bathroom during a Town Hall meeting could be called terrorism by the current definition because it is so wide. Given that there is so much confusion on what terrorism actually is now, and how important this topic is to the world generally, I think it is very important that a mention be made of its original scope -- acts by militant insurrectionists to kill civilians -- at the article's beginning. My attempt to add this change was deleted four times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeyer444 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In lack of response, the next step is to go to each page on World War 2 acts to kill civilians and add that it is an act of terrorism, including Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Intimate Partner Violence

Hard to believe the terrorism article is in this condition. Intimate Partner Violence has its own page, I don't think the terrorism article is the right place to discuss every kind of violence and should be limited to politically/ideologically motivated which is the general definition we are working with. Does anyone object to my removing this section? Seraphimsystem (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism is Least Common in the Most Democratic Nations

The sources cited don't really support the conclusion that this is a "General rule," they primarily deal with the relationship between economics and terrorism - the first source does say the data "suggests" a non-monotonic relationship between political freedom and terrorism for countries that are in transition, but it can't be taken to imply causation - please show me a WP:RS that says "terrorism is least common in the most democratic countries"

The next statement "However, one study suggests that suicide attacks may be an exception to this general rule" may be unsupported WP:SYNTH The argument doesn't sound WP:NPOV, it seems to be cherry picking from source material to argue a particular pov - maybe more context can improve this. Does anyone want to comment before I edit? Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The London Underground Bombing Photo

I am removing this photo for possible copy right problems, the link provided on Wikicommons to confirm the Creative Commons license is a dead link. I am new and I'm not sure what the proper way to follow up on this is. If I've done something wrong please leave a note here or on my talk page. Thanks Seraphimsystem (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Photos in this Article and Unregistered Edits

Does anyone object to attempting to make the photos in this article reflect the content of the text they appear next to? Right now it is just photos of random terrorist attacks that have no connection to the text they appear beside. For example, the religious terrorism section I am editing, someone keeps adding a photo of London next to text that 80% of deaths from terrorism occured in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria in 2013. I think the photo should reflect this reality, not be a photo of London. I have moved the Duma arson photo to appear beside the discussion on Jewish religious terrorism, as I think this issue is extremely significant, especially in Israel. It is not ok to say the London attack is "more important" or "more representative" just because you feel like it, when the section does not mention London even once. Also, since my adding Duma seems to have attracted attention from unregistered socks that have no edits other then replacing the Duma photo with photos of London, I think maybe we should consider semi-protecting this page for registered IPs only. Its a C-Class vital article and I am trying to improve it, without putting WP:UNDUE weight on any one issue, but I am not happy about unregistered socks making edits that don't make sense and are obviously solely motivated by politics. Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=terrorism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1328039/Straight-talk-on-terrorism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919050732/http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://titan.iwu.edu/~econ/uer/articles/kevin_goldstein.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512021205/https://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00000137/01/Primorat.pdf to http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00000137/01/Primorat.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://site.d66.nl/gerbrandy/document/eu_action_plan_against_wildlife/f%3D/vj7iilz6wlmw.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/terrorism

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) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fourth generation warfare

Does anyone else think Fourth generation warfare is not established enough in scholarship to warrant being prominently featured in the 2nd sentence of the lead? Seraphimsystem (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I removed this when reformed the lead a few months ago, not knowing you had made a discussion about it on the talk page, so no worries here anymore. SpikeballUnion (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.asap-spssi.org/pdf/asap019.pdf
• Replaced archive link https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RPT6zpTtE08J:www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html+%22everyone+agrees:+terrorism+is+a+pejorative+term%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en with https://web.archive.org/web/20090416230530/http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html on http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820130938/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311054052/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980903/text/80903-04.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980903/text/80903-04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030073538/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/DB.aspx?path=DB%2Fstudies%2Fpage2_en.xml to https://treaties.un.org/Pages/DB.aspx?path=DB%2Fstudies%2Fpage2_en.xml

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) 20:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322032907/http://terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/334 to http://terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/334

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) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)