Talk:Terrorism

Terrorism is only terrorism if committed by a Muslim. Otherwise, it's extremism.

• The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.96.50 (talk) 18:22, 23 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. [1] — 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)