Talk:Terrorism

Too complicated

Too long to really capture the idea and flavor behind what really is terrorism.

The manner in which the term is used is an oxymoron. All violence creates fear, being it through physical or psychological means, through state or non-state actors.

Attempting to define one parties violent or more violent norms as terrorist/terrorism (because you are the recipient of that violence) and other parties violent norms as being completely acceptable (because you are the provider of that violence), is a slippery freudian of ´lepers´ in ones own head, not terrorism. (reference to U2´s song One and historical soundtracks might be appropiate)

If it were simpler, the current exposé might leave more of a feel for the situation than simply propaganda for terrorist or counter-terrorist movements.

Attempting to define terrorism through a short list of points might be more usefull than an exposé. A long time ago, that was, if I remember correctly, how this part of the encyclopedia started.
(190.38.99.16 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

An argumentation for the use of terrorism as an pejorative can be found in "Enemy of Humanity: The Anti-Piracy Discourse in Present-Day Anti-Terrorism", Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 21, no. 3, 2009, s. 401-411, by Mikkel Thorup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.18.220 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I made a few edits, and found a few further issues that still need attention.

• I added cite tags because many statements were completely unsourced.
• I removed "foreign" from the phrase political and foreign enemies, changing it to "political and foreign enemies" as this is much more comprehensive
• While the use of violence by a state against alleged terrorists may be terror, or may at least be alleged by others, this needs a source
• The "violent non-state actor" section is unsourced and may be original research.
• Finally, an issue in the first setence of the whole article: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. This is problematic because what does the "use of terror" mean? Does it mean the creation of terror? Or using terror that has already been created by others? Terror is also undefined in the article. Defining terrorism as the use of terror comes close to the faux pas of defining a word by using the word itself in the definition. --达伟 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The question of definition of terrorism is very simple. The problem is that some people in wikipedia do not want to use the word and keeps mudding the waters. They keep saying that there are many different definitions what is true for each single concept of human science.

There are many definitions but mostly all of them cover the same semantic field.

The one we have now is pathetic since tries -succesfully- to not say anything.

A correct definition should be "Terrorism is the use of violence by non-governametal entities to coerce societies of governements to behave in a certain way or to adopt certain policies. The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages.An intuitive way of look at the concept is to see as 'crimes of war' in absence of war."

This definition can referenced to Hoffman and many other authors and all its points can be easily defended. If academic references are used, no problems appear. It is important that people accepts the easy point that when an army does terrorist-like acts, they must be called 'crimes of war' and that the criminal represion of civilian population by their own governement must be called diferently because is a diferent thing.--Igor21 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"The one we have now is pathetic since tries -succesfully- to not say anything" - Please remember to wp:assume good faith.

I don't think you will find strong support for leaving out government-sponsored or even government-performed terrorism.

"can referenced to Hoffman and many other authors and all its points can be easily defended" - I would like to see that *ADDED* (in a way that shows the conflict with the current definition without removing the current definition), with sources, with an explanation of how NO significant wp:RS consider/report government acts to be acts of terrorism.- Sinneed 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The current definition and the text that follows it are a kind of mindless rambling going from no-where to no-where. In wikipedia parlance I would say that thiese explanations about that there is no definition are primary source and make use of misleading quotes. There is certainly a definition that has some nuances but with a clear core.

I have no time to discuss endelessly things that are self-evident and that everybody minimally versed in the subject knows. If you want to add something to the text, good luck when the terrorism-deniers arrive with their "there is no definition" and their "everything and/or nothing is terrorism".

Answering your point, government-sponsored terrorism is terrorism as long as it is not performed directly by members of governement agancies. If anyone reading this is interested in knowing about terrorism, read "Inside terrorism" by Hoffman (and the books that will find in the bibliography page of the book) and forget this article. --Igor21 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Real definition of terrorism is trying to define it. Scary prospect. :) It's such a loaded term.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very scary. Much better to leave the current non-sense with its misleading quotes.--Igor21 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor21 you have a specific POV with which you try to simplify what is a very complicated subject. For example you wrote above that "The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages." So should we conclude that the PIRA were guerrillas not terrorists or how do we explain no go areas and Operation Motorman? The French resistance did not hold territory until the summer of 1944 so prior to that were they guerrillas or terrorists? --PBS (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Philip Baird Shearer : I have went through your quizes many times and I know how useless it is. In case the user who answers manages to go throgth the whole checklist, he will find another longer one with even more intrincated questions because you always have another question or another border case to show.

However, for the benefit of people who did not have the privilege of reading previous exchanges I will say two easy key concepts :

-What is terrorist (or not) is the INCIDENT, not the organization.

-The existence of border cases does not imply that categories do not exist

There is scientific literature about terrorism and is not correct to quote only the first page (Where says that there are many definitions of terrorism). We should go to the second page where fully detailed and agreed definitions are provided.

You have been for years oposing "terrorism" to have a definition in en:Wikipedia because your POV is that "everything and nothing is terrorism". I guess this time will be the same since nobody has the time you seem to have to impose your POW. But, please do not accuse me of having a POW when I can source definitions in the very same books that are currently tortiously used for for denying its existence.--Igor21 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You say "-What is terrorist (or not) is the INCIDENT, not the organization." The British and American governments do not agree with you or there would be no lists of prescribed organisations.

No one denies that there are lots of definitions of terrorism, (or that the term is prerogative). The differences between who is and is not a lawful combat has been noted at a diplomatic level since the formulation of the Martens Clause at the end of the 19th century. As always the devil is always in the detail, that is why examples such as the two I gave above help to clarify that the issue is complicated. -- PBS (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, I have never seen any of your examples helping to clarify. They are always specificately aimed to blur the concept and to enhance the subjetivity of its atribution. I can show how misleading they are, but as I always tell you is not a question of opinions but a question of respecting sources.

I have never said that diplomatic or political sources can be used but all the way round. Diplomats are biased since this is the very nature of their works. To be honest, I think that the reason you name diplomatic and political sources is because you know that are contradictory. I have offered already academic sources that are not self-contradictory.

You do not like the level of analisis based in incident because all the misteries disappear.

I am sorry to say that your idea that terrorism is just a word that can be thrown to everybody who does political wiolence is very close to be WP:OR. It can be true when we speak about mass media, colloquial pub conversations or political spin, but becomes false when we speak about people who speaks with the proper level of language.--Igor21 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision of lede paragraph

I know this has been probably discussed ad infinitum, but I think there is consensus (among the people writing on the talk page) that the current version is especially wishy-washy, and might consider another go at trying to define a really-tough-to-define word -- terrorism -- so here's a proposed rewrite of the lede:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism, despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition, is often considered to be deliberate violence directed at innocent non-combatants to cause fear to attract media attention for political purposes for purposes of coercion. So an act which meets most or all of these criteria is often considered to be terrorism. There is considerable disagreement about whether the term can be applied to government or religious leaders and whether the term should be extended to include large-scale violence such as war. Further, the distinction between terrorism and crime is hard to specify. Some apply the term to systematic violence while others apply it to one-time acts of violence. A few consider unintentional violence as terrorism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is important to emphasize that the term is charged politically and emotionally and generally has strong negative connotations. Its meaning often depends on the ideology of the user and the context of its use. Studies have found more than one hundred definitions of the term. At present, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition. Governments have described opponents as terrorists to delegitimize them. Some suggest that the term terrorist is so fraught with conceptual problems that a better term would be violent non-state actor. Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So, wondering what people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Another way to go about it is to break down pieces of the definition into arguable bits, and argue over each criteria. If we all feel certain criteria are part of the term, we can say so; if we disagree widely about a specific criteria, we can say that (in the final version) too. Here are some of the aspects which we can break down and examine. For each criteria, please add below each item whether you (1) strongly agree (2) somewhat agree (3) occasionally agree (4) disagree somewhat (5) disagree strongly. Or make a very brief comment.

• Terrorism involves violence.

Strongly agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists act deliberately.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorism involves coercion.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists try to create fear.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists try to attract media attention.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists are motivated by a political purpose.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists can be governments.

Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists target innocents.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists strike armies/police but disregard innocents.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorism includes war.

Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorism is justifiable in some situations.

Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Terrorists advance an ideological goal.

Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that I have read the books of Schmidt and Hoffman where these quotes appear. The reason for these authors to say that "there exist many definitions" is not -as here is continuously said- to imply that there is no way of defining. All the way round, after having say that, they offer clear definitions that gather perfeclty the semantic core.

So we must stop doing "primary source" and "original investigation" by inventing that there is no agreement on what is terrorism.

To say it loud and clear, the "hundreads" of definitions that exist, say mainly the same.

The definition I proposed above is the most accepted in the sources

"Terrorism is the use of violence by non-governametal entities to coerce societies of governements to behave in a certain way or to adopt certain policies. The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages.An intuitive way of look at the concept is to see as 'crimes of war' in absence of war.

The word "terrorism" has been used as a political insult and as a way to deslegitimize ideological antagonists. Academic research attend only to the nature of the incidents leaving aside the motivations and aims of the perpetrators"

This definition is widely used because allow to clasify political violence in five distinct kinds :

-Terrorism : (already defined)

-War : armies vs, armies

-Guerrilla or insurgency : non-governental entities trying by force to rule a geographic area

-Crimes of war done by armies to third parties

-Terrorism or state : done by armies and governements to their own population

It must be said that what is terrorism or not is the incident itself. E.g. 1 The Colombian FARC did participate in terrorist incidents as authors but to analize them as a terrorist organization is misleading. People who honestly is worried by libel never use the word "terrorist" to refer to people. It uses only to refer to incidents.

Finally, the strong connotations are not for the word but the actions described. But we must not intend to gather ell the wrong doings in a single word. E.g. carpet bombing an open city is a "crime of war" and to call it "terrorism" does not add anything except confusion.--Igor21 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you like a particular definition. There is much to be said for this definition. But I think others have different ideas about what the term "terrorism" means. I don't think there is nearly as much agreement as you think. For example, I think, personally, that terrorism includes war in some situations; for example, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, I saw that as an act of terrorism; but I know most people disagree with me about this. I've read Hoffman as well as other writers, and while I'll agree that a general sense of terrorism is that it involves "non-governmental entitites", I've seen enough situations in which people have used the term to refer to governments, or government leaders. There was speculation that president Bush acted like a terrorist by invading Iraq in 2003; while I didn't think of him in quite that way, there were people who described Bush as a terrorist, and these opinions were in mainstream print sources like the NY Times. So I think we have to respect that the term has multiple meanings. And it's our job to try to capture, as best we can, the different senses of the term.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was trying to get at was this: if we break down the term into specific criteria, we might find considerable agreement about each one; or if we don't, we'll at least know that some criteria vary considerably. That's why I'm hoping people will put in their comments above, or react to my proposed revised definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than saying that I like a particular definition, would be more accurate to define my stance tby saying that I like a certain way of finding the correct definition.

In my opinion, the correct wikipedian way to do this is to source the definition from academic sources, not doing a poll.(Source properly not like is done now twisting the words to make appear that there is no definition)

There are in fact two separate meanings for the word. There is the vulgar meaning that is basically a kind of political insult that alludes to a purposely excessive violence and/or ilegitimate violence. The scientific definition does not make dependent an incident to qualified as "terrorist" on such slipery concepts as "excesive" or "legitimate" but only in the nature of the fact.

Your poll is original research but do not worry very much since this article is very prone to original research specially by people inventing that "there is no definition" and "terrorism is everything and is nothing".--Igor21 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm a big believer in references and sourcing. Did you see how I added perhaps 40 or 50 references the other day? What I'm saying is that sources, as well, disagree. And the concept is hard to pin down. I ran into similar problems with the article about the word rights. But what I'm suggesting is trying to come to some kind of consensus among people who edit this page, based on sources, so this article is more helpful to people. Your contention "two separate meanings for the word" I disagree with. I have my own sense of what the term means, but all of us have to realize that there are many meanings.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I aplaud with both hands your believing in sources but let me insist that the consensus must be in which sources must be used. I propose Hoffman and Schmidt.

And yes, "terrorism" has many meanings as "lion" or "dog" or any normal word but in a enciclopedia we must get stuck to the scientific meanings and dismiss vulgar uses.--Igor21 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The main difference between Terrorism and Guerrilla is selection of targets. Terrorist are targeting civilians and guerrilla is targeting military personals and military buildings, facilities etc. But, sometime civilians (formally) can be consider as military. When? For example if President of US visit Afghanistan or Iraq (country or countries subject of Aggression or subject of Gross Violation of International Criminal Law in this case Crimes Against Peace as it is define during the Nirenberg Trial) , he or she can be consider as legitimate and ultimate target since he or she represent Military of country which committed Aggression (or he or she is on position of ultimate military power). Any attack to mentioned (formal civilian) is consider as attack to Military not to civilian target, so furthermore is consider as Guerrilla. Guerrilla combatant are protected by Geneva Convection ref {http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNUY} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgius2010 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of last section

(but a section break for easier editing)

I think the views of Hoffman and Schmidt need serious treatment, but these two are not the be-all end-all of the topic what's terrorism. And I don't think it helps to say that alternative definitions of terrorism are "vulgar". Since my proposal has been up there a few days now, and there hasn't been much interest or reaction, I think it's time for a change here. Currently, in my view, the LEDE is mostly unworkable; I think my proposed version (above) is better but not perfect and does a somewhat better job of saying what people are saying, and tries to be fair to everybody. I'm switching it in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I Must say that your text has serious flaws, specially in the second paragraph, but it is clearly better thant the current non-sense so you can go ahead. Any improvement is good.

"Vulgar" it is not unrespectful but a way of saying non-scientif and non-academic. Let see what happens when the tribe of negacionist sees that you have changed his gospel ("Terrorism is everything and is nothing and we have books that say that there zillions of definitions").--Igor21 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding and your support. I agree this is a difficult problem and there's lots of disagreement. I put in the new lede (somewhat changed from above) and I agree it's better than before, but that people will disagree about it. I'm wondering whether this kind of construct is best: like, here's a grabbag of terms which are sometimes used to describe terrorism (eg deliberate, against innocents, violence, etc) and the more terms that apply, the more likely that someone will agree "that's terrorism". Sheesh. If your sense of "vulgar" is nonacademic, then I'm kind of agreeing what you're saying somewhat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that I agree with your assessment of the second paragraph. Can you improve it? I'm unhappy with it too. I think more references helps whatever we do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JBS is here so the game is over.--Igor21 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Lets try. What you think about :

"Terrorism, despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition,[1][2][3] is considered to be the deliberate[4] use of violence[5] or the threat of use of violence[6] directed at non-combatants[7] to coerce governements systematically[8] by attracting media attention[9] to push causes which may be political[4][3][5] or ideological[6] or religious[6]. There is considerable disagreement about the frontiers of the term since academically is restricted to non-governemental organizations while in daily language is used more broadly. Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others.

The term is charged politically and emotionally and has strong negative connotations and it is used very often as a political insult.[12] In non-academic contexts its intended meaning often depends on the side that the user takes in the conflict. It is also very commonly accepted by mass media that legitimacy -or not- of the alleged cause is relevant in the use of the term. Political calculus has impeded to formulate a juridical definition internationally accepted since every country has interes in conflicts whose actor do not want to be qualified as terrorists. To complicate things even more, many organizations use tactics that can be qualified as terrorist mixed with others that cannot.

To avoid all these problems in academic contexts is the incident that is qualified as terrorism, not the organization. If an incident of political violence is purposely commited with the goal of atracting attention and its author is not a state, the incident is a terrorist incident whatever his author, and whatever his goal." I will not put refs before is agreed but all this is easily to reference--Igor21 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like your rewording of the first sentence (the "coercion" thing was out of place) so your wording here is an improvement. What I'm not clear about is how much the academic vs nonacademic distinction is important. What I'm saying is that I think some academics think of terrorists as governments (look at Benjamin Ginsberg perhaps or Noam Chomsky. I'm saying I think we're making our jobs easier (with less fuss) if we leave the whole academic vs nonacademic distinction out of it; that is, we're opening ourselves up for even more debate by putting that in. I'm not happy with the construction "frontiers of the term". I like the old idea I had of here's the grabbag of criteria: the more they are, the greater the likelihood it's terrorism, that is, my current sentence "An act which meets many or all of these criteria is often considered to be terrorism." I still somewhat prefer the phrase "strong negative connotations" (since it has a wider reach) rather than "political insult" but if you feel strongly about this, use your term. I liked the whole 100+ definitions idea which was from before; it says very quickly how widespread the disagreement is; in my own researching stuff, I've come upon considerable variation in definitions -- they're not all alike, in my sense. Now, this legitimacy subject -- sheesh -- are you trying to say that if the popular perception of the underlying cause is seen as "legitimate", then terrorism is seen as a less bad way or more morally acceptable way of furthering that legitimate cause? If so, this is a complicated idea that I think belongs in the body of the text, now in the LEDE where we're trying to at least establish the parameters of the term. But how about this change: instead of just saying governments, say this: "People have described opponents as terrorists to delegitimize them", and cut out the word government (or change it to people). What do you think about that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction helps a lot since there is a clear academic definition but people -including you- think that the vulgar meaning (or non-academic) also must be reflected. Ginsberg and Chomsky are not relevant since the latter is academic in other fields other than terrorism and the former is a kind of partisan spin doctor whose opinions are one-use-only. Hoffman and Schmidt are real academic people publishing about the subject and doing presentations in congresses and simposia--Igor21 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I respect Hoffman; I read most of his book a while back. I don't know Schmidt (or if I came across and read his stuff, I don't recall the name). The word "vulgar" means lower-class, crude, and I don't see how that can apply here. I've read parts of rather sophisticated books on terrorism, and my sense is that there isn't yet a formal discipline called "terrorism studies" (although some academics are trying hard to make one, and it may well happen in the future). It's not like "terrorism" is a field of study like "sociology" with established thinkers and approaches; rather, it's sometimes a branch of law, or criminology. But I don't think there is some community out there of academic terrorism experts who have any kind of consensus about what terrorism is, or how to fight it, or how to prevent it. Rather, there are some so-called "experts" out there who try to make a living at it like Brian Michael Jenkins. This whole field is evolving quickly. Many people in government know a lot, but can't say what they know. There's quoted sources saying Hoffman has changed his mind about what constitutes "terrorism" after a recent event, but I'm not blaming him for that; what I'm saying is that things are changing. Do you have any information suggesting that the academic community of terrorism experts has solidly rallied behind a particular definition? Show me what you have supporting this and I'll consider what you have to say. I'm working on a new article called "terrorism prevention strategies" and am learning new stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the term "vulgar" you are right and we can better substitute by "common" or "colloquial".

I can understand your perception but -with due respect- I must say that is completely incorrect. There is a corpus of doctrine and an acedemic comunity of people studying terrorism. Hoffman is the most visible expert but if you read the bibliography of his book you will find other authors and reading them you will find more and more. Another good source of academic experts is the bibliography of John Horgan's book "The Psychology Of Terrorism" that in itself is a very good compendium of the academic knowledge in the subject.

There is nothing magic in terrorism. Is a perfectly known tactic and if you study incidents is quite easy to say which are terrorism and which are not. The problem is its coloquial use as an insult or as a target marker that completely blur the concept and converts in a kind of inefable threat. E.g. the use of the word by Bush was extremely misleading since he called "terrorist" everybody who violently oposes USA following the path of Israel spin doctors who have been doing this for years. Terrorism is a tactic as heinous as it is but the people who practise do because they think it helps to push their goals, not because they are evil.

Wikipedia must spread rational and scientific ways of looking at terrorism as must spread rational and scientific ways of looking to H1N1 virus (Swine Flu). To make available sophisticated thinking to common people is the reason to exist of enciclopedias. Terrorism is an extremely critical issue in the begining of the XXI century and a rational handling by public opinion need the knowledge that Hoffman.--Igor21 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I laud your sense of mission about pursuing a rational approach. I favor reason, rational thinking, rigor myself. Academics and experts and strategists I've read regarding the subject of terrorism pretty much agree that there isn't one accepted definition of terrorism -- Hoffman himself says this in his Inside Terrorism and devotes the first or second chapter I think to his point that there isn't one definition, and that the term is fraught with conceptual problems. Check out: Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature by Alex Peter Schmid -- now there's a book that will really make your eyes water -- it's academic gobbledygook at its finest -- but this book, as well, suggests there isn't one accepted version of what constitutes terrorism. I, myself, see terrorism in a different light -- as "violence against individual rights"; it's a particularly broad conception that includes muggers as terrorists, and in my sense of the term, political agendas and media attention are irrelevant. But I can't include my own sense here; rather, we have to work with what the mainstream sense of the term is. And you'll admit that it varies widely, even within the academic community as I've tried to suggest. If you have solid evidence that academics, who are identified as terrorism experts, are all standing behind one version of the term terrorism, please say exactly what this definition is, who is supporting it. If you can do that, I'll support your efforts to emphasize that definition here (or we can make a special section of this article dealing with that). But my sense is, is that such a consensus about the meaning of the term has not happened yet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture?

Shouldn't we have a picture in the beginning of the article, showing the typical muslim terrorist? With a turban and an AK47. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.224.216 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical terrorists aren't "Muslims"; that's a POV issue. Terrorists come in all shapes, colors, religions, stripes, unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism and Abuse

I have been doing a lot of work singlehandedly on Abuse. Terrorism is a subset of abuse. Just about everybody you could imagine can potentially abuse and it looks like a wide range of people can terrorise. Any assistance on Abuse would be appreciated but the toughest sections to do with the common characteristics of abusers, regardless of the context, remain to be done. --Penbat (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing a good job on Abuse, that is, you're not abusing your editing role. :) Many subsections. What do you think of the updated definition for "terrorism" on this page? We've been struggling with it; it's like trying to grab water in one's hand.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro text here looks reasonably OK. Personally i would slice the individual Key Criteria into subsections. You could do what i did for the abuse intro and quote a dictionary definition. Anyway i understand the problem. It is difficult in some cases to draw the line as to whether something is or isnt abuse, same problem with terrorism, bullying, corruption etc etc. On the abuse article i am trying to cover it in general and not get too bogged down in specifics. The underlying psychology of an abuser is typically similar regardless of the context or type of abuse.--Penbat (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. The abuse article has an interesting format. So it's like a gateway term for many other articles. Interesting idea. One comment was that the TOC looks a bit long (that is, possibly not change it, but hide one of the levels -- I think there's a way to do this, so it's shortened). But the alphabetical order idea seems smart (for the types of abuse). I've found pictures help improve a page visually, but on a topic like abuse, it would be counter-productive perhaps to see images of people with bruises etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think dictionaries are a better source than world renown academic specialists. For instance the former non-sense "Terrorism is the use of terror" came out of a dictionary.--Igor21 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I could not avoid listing all the abuses and giving a short summary but primarily that is not what the article was primarily intended to be. In time i will add extra sections covering the phenomina (style and characteristics) of abuse and abusers collectively, independant of context. If i could I would have organised the individual abuses into logical groups but there is no ideal way of doing it that works well. Yes the TOC is long but i think the way it is done is the least worst solution. --Penbat (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism versions

I think the current version of terrorism (let's call it the "Igor" version) is better (but not perfect; nothing will be) than the previous one since it has (1) more references (2) better describes the term (3) emphasizes the lack of agreement about what the term includes. In addition, while many see terrorism as "systematic" violence, a one-time horrible act can also be seen as terrorism; so the "systematic" part of terrorism needs de-emphasis in my view. To avoid an editing war, if people feel strongly about one version or the other, we should debate here on the talk page. Which one do people prefer? Or is there some compromise version which will succeed better?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is responding to remarks by User:SlimVirgin on another talk page. There will always be battling over an issue as contentious as the definition of terrorism. I prefer a definition which is longer, backed up by numerous references; others have different ideas. This is a complex topic, and I think the fair assessment is that we're ALL going to disagree about the definition. I use references to support my sense of what this definition is about, and others are free to dispute with me. I understand that some editors such as SlimVirgin don't like template references; I have no objection if SlimVirgin wants to change the references to non-template versions. My general sense is: if this dispute is merely about referencing formats, then this is a non-issue, and making too big of a deal about referencing formats might count as disruptive editing. Please assume WP:FAITH. Please understand that this is always going to be an ongoing process to specify what a definition about this highly controversial topic is all about..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As we disagree, I think that the previous introduction is better because we can agree on a minimum definition. -- PBS (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

why do you think the previous definition is better than the Igor definition? I don't think the previous definition says much; the word "coercion" is vague, and doesn't come up in sources much. While I think there is disagreement about what, exactly, terrorism is, I think the Igor definition makes this obvious. And it touches on a lot of things that people THINK involve terrorism without weighting it too much towards one particular definition. The Igor definition is well-referenced, with perhaps 10 or 12 references in the first line alone; the previous definition has few references. Please make a case why you prefer one definition over the other, supported by facts, references. Until then, I'm advocating the Igor definition, but am willing to seek reasonable compromise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen on either of them, but the references in Tom's are completely unnecessary (25 in the first paragraph!), and the templates make it impossible to edit well. Leads don't need as many references anyway; see WP:LEAD. The two versions side by side below. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Side by side comparison

Current version Tom's proposal Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness. Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined. The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state.). A less politically and emotionally charged, and more easily definable, term is violent non-state actor (though the semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists," while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists"). Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. Terrorism, despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition, is often considered to be deliberate violence or the threat of violence directed at innocent non-combatants and governments to cause fear systematically to attract media attention for causes which may be political or ideological or religious and which are viewed as coercive. An act which meets many or all of these criteria is often considered to be terrorism. There is considerable disagreement about whether the term can describe government or religious leaders and whether the term should be extended to include wartime acts. Further, the distinction between terrorism and crime is hard to specify. The term is charged politically and emotionally and has strong negative connotations. Its meaning often depends on the ideology of the user and the context of its use. Studies have found more than one hundred definitions of the term. At present, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition. Governments have described opponents as terrorists to delegitimize them. Some suggest that the term terrorist is so fraught with conceptual problems that a better term would be violent non-state actor. Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

SV: I've added a collapse box (wood for the trees) please remove it if you do not approve. --PBS (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's open up discussion about which is the preferred definition. The SlimVirgin definition? Or the Igor definition?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the Igor definition since it has MORE references. This is the first instance where I've seen something reverted because it had "too many references". I'm suspicious of people who want less references; seems to violate WP:VERIFY. My problems with the SlimVirgin version are these: I don't think "systematic" and "coercion" are that relevant to what terrorism is about. A one-time attack such as 9/11 is certainly terrorism, and it isn't "systematic" but a one-time deal. But this is the kind of subject Wikipedians fuss over. "Coercion" -- most definitions of terrorism don't even use this word. So, please vote for a version.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor one vote from me. Reasons as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No poll so early in a discussion, they tend to be divisive and do not help build a consensus. (I can provide links to the policies and guidelines on this but I will assume for the moment we all know this).-- PBS (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on a LONG TIME. And it will keep going on a LONG TIME. And there will be numerous polls. Btw I like your show/hide box. Cool feature.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with the new first sentence ((the "Igor" version) Let us call it the new version and the old version for that is what they are and it definitely is not SV's version) is that it is asynthesis complete with with weasel words "often considered to be" --PBS (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Tom, as you know very well, neither is the "SlimVirgin version." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm not happy with the "often considered" either, but is there a better way to put it? Weasel or no weasel (by the way: accusing another editor of writing like a "weasel" violates WP:CIVIL) My problem with the SlimVirgin or prior version is that the definition ignores whole areas which most people consider as terrorism, such as ideological basis (political/religious), deliberately trying to create fear, targeting noncombatants, etc etc. In my research about terrorism, these subjects came up again and again and again (in the references). I think they merit inclusion, while agreeing that there is huge disagreement at the same time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of writing like a weasel, just of using a weasel turn of phrase, for which there is a specific guideline see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and from your reply, one of which I presume that you were not aware. So no offence was meant, and I hope now you have my explanation none taken. -- PBS (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand you didn't mean to sound insulting. My main objections are with the whole "Weasel" policy which, in my view, is insulting in its very nature -- it's a quickie way for Wikipedians to dumb down the level of editing into a mudfight, in my view. I've been aware of the weasel policy for a while and I don't like it; my personal policy is NOT to use the "weasel" tag on anybody, period, and I urge others to do likewise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My problems with the definition continue. Almost all senses of the definition of terrorism use the term "violence"; but Wikipedia's current one doesn't. Why? And I agree with Igor that there's a problem when a word like "terrorism" uses the word "terror" to describe itself. I have serious problems with the idea that "systematic" is the basis of the definition -- the fourth word here. My hunch is many definitions of terrorism have some variant of "systematic" in them, but many do not; and "coercion" seems, in my view, nebulous, essentially, forcing people to do things they don't want to do. In my sense, this concept is tangential to the essence of terrorism. But my biggest problem, overall, is that important senses of the term, which most people think of when they think terrorism, are omitted in the first paragraph -- the media aspect, the attack on innocents, the ideological aspects -- these are mainstream views about what constitutes terrorism, and they're omitted. Their omission brings serious distortions; and while there is disagreement about the extent and number of which parts of this definition belong here, we need to say something like "most people consider these aspects to be part of terrorism", which is, unfortunately, the best (perhaps) we can do, given the huge disagreement about this definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What does "innocent" mean? as in "directed at innocent non-combatants" does that mean it is not terrorism to target guilty non-combatants? Are you suggesting that most people who consider the 9/11 attacks to be terrorists would not consider the attacks on the US Marines in Beirut not to be terrorist attack? Or that they would make a distinction between the flights flew into the World Trade Centre and Flight 77 which targeted the Pentagon? The IRA states that attacks on the City of London were designed to disrupt the British economy, so are those terrorist attacks? As a general rule people seem to be able to place attacks on a scale of moral outrage. So an attack aimed at the City of London, was not see by the British and Irish publics as being a grave as the near simultaneous attack on Warrington, although for the British government the attacks on the City caused far more problems. The definition you have synthesised does not seem able to distinguish between the two. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, I agree with you about the nebulousness of "innocent", in the sense that this whole "innocent" vs "guilty" distinction is thoroughly vacuous. But that's my POV. What I've been trying to do is add the NPOV version of terrorism, and in researching the topic, I've found that the word "innocent" comes up again and again, and it usually means "non-combatants", unarmed, unprepared people going about their daily lives, people who don't know their attackers. Here's Kean from the 9/11 Commission:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

“ Those who perished in those attacks or those who were wounded had done nothing to warrant it. They were going about their business. They were doing their jobs. They were flying to see family or to conduct business or to spend time with loved ones or going or returning from vacations. They didn't personally know their assassins. Those who attacked them had no particular human target in mind. They just wanted to kill as many people as possible. They didn't care who the victims were. All they had to do to warrant their killing and maiming, they wanted to target buildings or certain airplanes. ”

--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And, terrorists attack government & military targets too, so you're right, it's thoroughly nebulous. My own sense of terrorism is "violence against individual rights" but this is not a mainstream view (I think a mugging is terrorism, but few will agree with me about this). But my sense of lots of reading mainstream sources about terrorism is that terrorists target both military, police, government and non-combatant civilian citizens too -- they don't care who they kill -- and that some sense of this belongs in the definition, somehow, along with the other stuff I mentioned.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS : To find fronteer cases does not make the sources disappear. Hoffman and Schmidt, to name two, give clear definitions. There exist something that is called terrorism and it is studied as a subject. Wikipedia is not the place to elaborate theories neither about existence of things nor about inexistence of others.

SlimVirgin : The problem is that "terrorism" is a word that is used in 3 diferent contexts. In the street, in the courts&diplomacy and in universities. I want the latter -academic- definition to be written while others -Tomwsulcer- wants the first.

And then we have Philip who wants it to be removed, erased, destroyed, etc.... He wants the article to say that "nobody knows what is terrorism". He keeps throwing cases and cases and supposedly we must keep analizing them. If in his opinion we fail, he wins -and if not he throws ten more cases. In my way of thinking, the mere fact that it is posible to write a full monography about the aplication of these definitions to the incidents, means that is relevant and names something that is clear and distinct.

Terrorism is a terrible thing and it is unfair that we substract to general public the knowledge of academics that give a tool to understand the orgins, dinamics and goals of this particular kind of criminals. If bad goes to worst, we can do an article with the title "Scientific approach to terrrorism" and keep this one as it is.--Igor21 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor21 I am able to write for myself. I do not need you to explain to others what my position is. I am not in favour of Wikipedia making up a synthesised definition of what terrorism is and I think that is exactly what the proposed new definition does: "Terrorism ... is often considered to be deliberate violence or the threat of violence directed at innocent non-combatants and governments to cause fear systematically to attract media attention for causes which may be political or ideological or religious and which are viewed as coercive." We have a whole article on the definition of terrorism and trying to sum it up in one sentence is not going to work. The current introduction which is far from perfect does not stray into editorialising a definition. -- PBS (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS, perhaps in other areas the "do not synthesize" requirement may apply, but not here. The purpose of trying to say what the mainstream view of "terrorism" is requires us to say what most people think. While there is much disagreement about what terrorism encompasses, there is considerable agreement about many of the things terrorism includes, and the mainstream view is that it includes issues such as violence, directed at non-combatants, intentional action (not accidental), usually designed to attract media attention, etc. This is how people and newspapers and academics see terrorism. It is a more accurate and closer reflection of what terrorism is. In my view, you've thrown all of this out, and elevated a non-definition which doesn't even use the word "violence" -- you've substituted your POV about the definition which is contrary to what most readers think. Most readers looking up "terrorism" on Wikipedia, when they see the current version, will shake their heads in disbelief, and think Wikipedia is missing the boat here. And what I'm asking you to do, PBS, is what happens on all other articles -- compromise about what we agree on about a definition; if you can't compromise, this page will have constant edit-warring.

BTW, the article "definition of terrorism" is another masterpiece in denying the existence of terrorism. The lead paragraf insists in the idea that terrorism is not posible to be distinguished from bar room brawls. I quotes a report for the american army that quotes Schimdt with the typical twist of not saying that Schmidt himself has a clear definition of terrorism. This trick of quoting Schmidt is very typical of terrorism deniers. It is sad because these authors say that "there are many definitions" as a complain and encourage to use the one they give. But then people takes only the part where they say that "there are many definitions" and ignore the one they offer. --Igor21 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Section break (easier editing) but continuation of discussion

But is there any consensus among these different views? I'm in favor of including academic stuff in here as well as the street. Is there any consensus? Is there some common ground that we can all agree on?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean with Philip Baird Shearer? It is dificult to agree with someone whose only goal is to state that there is nothing particular called terrorism and that every incident -including bar room brawls- can be called as such.

Again Igor21 you have put words into my mouth please stop it. I did not say that a bar room brawl can be called terrorism, what I wrote was "rv to last version by GirasoleDE. A bar room brawl often has many of the characteristics which the change to the lead implies defines terrorism". -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the most recent synthesis: ""Terrorism ... is often considered to be deliberate violence or the threat of violence directed at innocent non-combatants and governments to cause fear systematically to attract media attention for causes which may be political or ideological or religious and which are viewed as coercive." During the most recent troubles there were Northern Ireland Loyalist paramilitaries who targeted members of the IRA (so not directed at the British Government). But members of the IRA were difficult targets to find and kill, so they also targeted, members of Sinn Féin, and those like the Shankill Butchers, people walking in Catholic areas. While this definition would clearly cover people walking in Catholic areas, would it cover the assassination of Pat Finucane? Also does it cover the killing of Billy Wright by the INLA? The British Government clearly thought so as all such killings were covered by the amnesty in the Good Friday agreement.

I think both definitions, or both syntheses as you say, would cover these cases you've mentioned, such as Shankill Butchers, the murder of Pat Finucane, and the targeting of Sinn Fein and Billy Wright. I agree terrorism is complex. And I think there are cases in which we'll come across an example which feels like terrorism but which won't exactly fit in the definition. So I don't think we or anybody can ever craft a tight definition. That is why I think a good description of the term would allow some leeway; for example, I think terrorism is usually done to attract media attention, but not always; and you've mentioned instances in which paramilitary people were targeted -- clearly they weren't innocent and clearly they weren't government officials. It's like this: as more and more of these criteria are met, then the likelihood that a certain act will be perceived as terrorism increases.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But look at the current definition once again: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. My problem is: does this do a good job of describing what terrorism is? For me, the systematic criterion is similar to the media attention criterion -- it's often the case that the violence is systematic, but not necessarily; the 9/11 attacks were a one-time deal, not a systematic occurrence like the Troubles in Northern Ireland. And, in my view, the term coercion is not the best descriptor, but is one of the descriptors. The definition continues: At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Well, I have problems here too -- contrasting ideological goal vs lone attack doesn't seem right. And I agree about your problem with the line about political effectiveness -- that is, sometimes terrorism IS politically effective.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But what I'm thinking is that some compromise is still possible which better describes terrorism, since in my view, the current definition doesn't do a good job of describing what most mainstream writers (newspapers, journalists, academics, military experts etc) see as terrorism. That is, I think we can do better; I think readers come across this definition which says very little, and scratch their heads: terrorism = systematic coercion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw my personal take on terrorism is highly at odds with the mainstream view; my sense is "terrorism is violence against individual rights" but I've found few people to agree with me about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion much of this article does not in any way begin to cover the complexities of "terrorism" in conflicts like that of the long troubles in Ireland, it is written from a single perspective which is similar to that taken by the Great Powers over the Martens Clause, rather than presenting terrorism as the complex issue it is. Take for example this statement in the current article "The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness." Well the IRA did and it was politically effective not once but twice, first securing the Irish Free State and later the Good Friday Agreement. So how does the author of that conclusion come to that conclusion? It seems to me that he did that by being selective in his use of examples. "Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives" This is not an accurate summary of a long article. I could go on -- as that only comments on two sentences in the second paragraph of the article -- but I won't. -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to unlock this is to distinguish the three levels of language. PBS for his allegations -apart from his fronteer cases- normally alludes to official or diplomatic statement so perhpas he can write the part where is said that each country consideres people terrorist or not depending on the conflict. You can write that any awful violence directed against common people is terrorism and I can summarize the academic definition. For me is rather bizarre since I do not see why is not done in similar cases but can be a way to stop hindering to public opinion the fact that terrorism is something clear and distinct.--Igor21 (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor, wondering exactly what your sense of the academic definition of terrorism is? Please specify it. Maybe if we can get your sense, PBS's sense, my sense, and perhaps SlimVirgin's sense, we can have a starting point for trying to reach some kind of compromise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I made my proposal above, ages ago.--Igor21 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor I couldn't find it above. Is it archived?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Tomwslucer. Here is :

"Terrorism is the use of violence by non-governemetal entities to coerce societies or governements to behave in a certain way or to adopt certain policies. The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages.An intuitive way of look at the concept is to see as 'crimes of war' in absence of war."

I also owe you an apology because perhaps your aproach by concepts is easier for consensus. So coming back to you own comments above I would say that for me the key concepts are "non-governemental", "violence", "propaganda" and "politics".

Igor I'm in agreement with you that terrorism is about violence. Sometimes, I feel, that governmental organizations can act like terrorists, but I realize this whole view is controversial. For example, I think of Hitler as a terrorist (although few others describe him this way.) But I think most people see terrorists as non-governmental actors. Propaganda? I'm less sure about that. "Political" purpose -- I see this as usually one of the goals of terrorists (although it can sometimes be religious, or ideological as well).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In reality all this debate is distorted because the problem of Schmidt or Hoffman is that they can see terrorism as something clear and distinct. They try to induce a definition and they check this definition against the idea they have. When the terrorism deniers use their quotes they create the sensation that the dificulty is in the concept, when it is only in the definition.

The dificulty in the definition comes from the fact that some organizations practice diferent tactics being terrorism one of them. The very easy solution is to qualify as terrorism each incident alone. Of course when we find an organization that only uses this tactic we can call it terrorist but if not, we do not qualify it and full stop.--Igor21 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS : I also apologize to you since I did not see your post. Your are right. The phrase "The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness." is utter nonsense and contradicts Hoffman main statement that the success of Irgun fueled terrorism for 50 years.

Regarding your cases, if a civilian kills another civilian by political reasons that is terrorism. You must see political violence divided in five : war, guerrilla/insurgency, terrorism, state terrorism and crimes of war. I know you have an idea about IRA buy I cannot grasp which is. IRA tried to adopt a military pose and tries to act as a governement with liberated areas as guerrillas do. However many of the incidents perpetrated by them can only be qualified as terrorism as many of the RUC actions were state terrorism or state sponsored terrorism in other cases. --Igor21 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

correction of definition

Terrorism can't be as it is presented in this article define as systematic us of terror. Terror is different form of violence. So we need to distinguish term of Terrorism from Terror and Terrorism from Guerrilla WarfareGeorgius2010 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

How? Governments, scholars, newshounds, activists of many types all squabble over what terrorism is and is not.- Sinneed 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

I am proposing additional information be added to this article.

After the second sentence, in the third paragraph, stating "Studies have found over 100 definitions of terrorism", I think the following should be added:

"A common distinction in the literature is between terrorist lumpers and terrorist splitters. Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war. Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain. This distinction is not simply academic, as the various definitions of terrorism yield different implications for how best to combat it."

The source for this material is:

Abrahms, Max. "Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies." Cato. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/02/10/max-abrahms/lumpers-versus-splitters-a-pivotal-battle-in-the-field-of-terrorism-studies/.

I believe this contribution to the article will be useful because it helps illuminate the very cloudy term "terrorism." It is not a prescriptive statement, as it does not attempt to define terrorism as a tactic. Rather, it gives the reader an over-view of different perspectives regarding the definition of terrorism in the academic and counter-terrorism communities today. From here, the reader can make a more informed opinion as to what sort of acts constitute terrorism.

Uclabruin1 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Uclabruin1

I can't support adding this to the already-unwieldy lead. Unless there is an objection, I expect to rework the section I have re-headed "definition", adding this, as well as the many-definitions note.- Sinneed 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a very clear definition of terrorism that it should be used in the article. All this debate is based in ignorance and lack of reading in the participants.--Igor21 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)