Talk:Terrorism/Archive 10

Previous discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

First paragraph

From where I stand, "the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religous, or ideological goal" is appliable to a too wide range of acts. Any militar action, such as the recent invasion of Iraq would be classified as terrorism... there are many other examples but I have no time to write them all. To my mind, terrorism would be perfectly defined by "the use of TERROR (great fear induced to the masses) for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological goal".I would erase 'religious', this statement alludes clearly to Islamic terrorism, whose goal is simply politic and they use religion as an excuse to recruit masses.

--GTubio 07:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I always liked this one: "Raising 'Collateral' targets to the Primary role in an act of mass violence for the purpose of instilling fear or causing chaos in order to advance one's cause." It gets everything: Hiroshima isnt terrorism because the people were not the target; they were such collateral that the even the Nation of Cowboys refuses to use that weapon any more, but they were not the target. Blowing up a group of shoppers in an Israeli mall IS terrorism: the shoppers are the primary targets of a violient action in order to advance the cause of the oppressed Palestinians. Bombing the USS Cole was not terrorism because it was a military target. Crashing planes into the WTC towers IS terrorism because the target, symbolic buildings and teh people in them, is what would be normally "collateral damage" in open warfare. Tom S.

No kidding. This "definition" is a joke! - Mustafaa 02:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much more plausible is Merriam-Webster's "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". - Mustafaa 02:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That means when I scared my little brothers into submission as a teenager I wasnt just a bully, I was a terrorist. Nope... still doesnt work. Unless you want to say that the the good relationship I NOW share with my brothers is just Stockholm Syndrome.  ;) Tom S.

I think terrorism does not apply to the American invasion to Iraq, because it does not intentionally target Iraqi civilians in order to achieve publicity to the American cause. The publicity of Iraqi civilian casualties (and the Invasion in general) only hurts the American cause, whereas civilian casualties only assist the cause of real terror groups, and are one of the main reasons for them in the first place. Think about this logic: if you think America wanted to steal the Iraqi oil, how does publicity benefit this illegal intention? so it follows, whatever your political persuasion, you'd have to agree that America invaded iraq DESPITE the publicity, and not because of it. A main Terrorism characteristic is a desperate effort against obscurity and a compulsive attention deficiency...

Well... that and the fact that the majority of Iraqi civilian casualties have been the result of the "insurgency", not US actions. Which would make my definition of terrorism a shoo-in for describing the insurgency.  :) Tom S.

Somebody has used the definition of Guerilla warfare, inserted the terms "through intimidation or by instilling fear" (as if this is not the psychological warfare tactics in every war) and thinks the matter is settled. This is disgusting bastardisation of a term. By that definition I am probably a sympathizer with terrorists. Terrorists seek ways to inflict terror on civillians and non-political figures for publicity. Criminals terrorize regularly. Morasul 12:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No... I dont think the criminals terrorizing thing works, but I think you're on the right track. It's all a matter of WHO you're targeting. Much as I am a patriotic American, I have to admit that there is no objective way to describe events such as the bombing of the USS Cole as terrorism. It was a valid military target; it was a geurilla hit and a damn good one. If it had been a civilian cruise ship or yacht, THEN it would be terrorism! But criminals aren't trying to advance a cause not directly affected by the strike; so they aren't terrorists either! The definition MUST: net in any sane definition of terrorism BARRING political bias, and must be FREE of ambiguities that cause common-sense non-terrorists to be lumped into the label. Tom S.

Really, there ought to be a distinction between terrorists and "guerrillas." It’s unfortunate that the terminology is not used more precisely. I’d propose something like the following definition for “terrorist”: Someone who systematically targets civilians in order to create disaffection between the populace and the government. Thus, I’d categorize blowing up an airliner or a restaurant as terrorism, while I would call driving a truck of explosives into a marine barracks (or a boat of explosives into a warship) as a military attack.

I agree. What do you think of mine above? Tom S.

if you do not consider the invasion of iraq terrorism then you must reject the definition, "the systematic use of terror..." - the first phase of the american invasion was self-titled the "shock and awe" campaign.

Exactly. Tom S.

In regards to GTubio's objection to "religion" being a reason for terrorism ("this statement clearly alludes to Islamic terrorism"), it does not (at least not to me). Having had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training, anti-abortion clinic bombings are considered by the government to be a form of terrorism and they are associated with the (Christian) religious right.

Likewise the IRA is widely considered a terrorist group. However, I think limiting the causes necessary for definition as terrorism to religion to be overly limiting of the definition itself. By that I mean that using religion in the definition excludes or at least reduces the fit of NON religious terrorism. Tom S.

A definitional view

terrorism is a form of warfare. that is to say, politics by other means. the term is therefore subject to the same disputes of ethics, morality and law as are other types of warfare. the most prominent of these other types is military warfare.

definitions of the term usually depend of these four elements: a) subject b) object c) the means d) the objective.

the term is currently used when one or more of the following is true: a) the subject is a non-state actor b) the object is a non-combatant c) the means are not military (ie conventional tools such as guns, bombs, tanks, ships & planes) d) the objective is to change the established order.

this leads to both inconsistencies of usage and overlaps with miltary warfare. for instance: iraqi partisans defending falluja against united states marines fall under definition a) above, whereas the united states marines fall under d) with a strong case to be made under b) if the (very few) news reports are to be believed. in any case, by this reasoning, both sides are terrorist. notwithstanding this, the united states marines would claim to be engaging in military warfare.

other cases in point are: cretan partisan defence against german paraborne invasion in world war 2; the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki; the warsaw uprising in world war 2; the vietcong; the american revolutionaries.

in practice then, the term is used to suggest that one or more of the elements are good or bad in his / her opinion. that is to say: the speaker wishes to imply one or more of a) the subject is bad b) the object is good c) the means are bad d) the objective is bad.

if the speaker wishes to certify the person or the action as illegitimate, then he / she finds cause in one or more of the four elements. if he / she doesn't, then he / she finds cause in one or more of the four elements. it is that easy.

let us be grateful for, and irritated by, the elasticity of the english language.

"Intention" a factor? I disagree

At the very least that section is disputed and should be cleaned up to accurately relflect the opposing view. Concern for 100,000 civilians killed should have included the possibility of not invading. Would bombing a hospital or arresting doctors count as terrorism? Here is the problematic section from the "No concern for civilian life or safety" sub section:

If the attackers make at least some attempt to reduce civilian casualties, such as by using precision-guided munitions rather than weapons designed to cause maximum area damage; if civilians in the target zone are forcefully removed prior to the attack, or warned and allowed a reasonable space of time to evacuate; if the attackers show some concern to civilian casualties, or if they indicate the primary target to be the "system" rather than its civilian inhabitants. Attacks that lack any of these traits are more easily defined as terrorism.

zen master T 06:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've contributed to that portion, but for the record, they were only for grammatic reasons. I'm relatively neutral on the whole concept, really; I'm just trying to contribute my knowledge of the language. If it's to stay, I think perhaps it could be rephrased as 'potential signs of non-terrorism', with the emphasis on 'potential'. Perhaps a more appropriate approach would simply be to point out that civilian(s) unforeseeably getting in the way (intelligence failure, battlefield accidents, 'being a hero') is not the same as targetting them (or allowing them to become targets due to recklessness or neglect). Dunno. -- Wisq 00:13, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Re. "First paragraph", and generally agreeing with "A definitional view"

The article as it stands now takes a strong and, in my opinion, a biased stance, in trying to define "terrorism".

In spite of its several and varied qualifications to the definition -- that the term is "controversial", that it has "multiple definitions", providing various conflicting examples, and so on -- the fact that any definition of "it" as a "term" even is offered, here, immediately involves an inescapable contradiction. In our post-9/11 "War on Terrorism" world, the term itself has been appropriated by adherents of one extremist political position, such that if you believe "terrorism" can be defined, at all, then you're on their side, and if you don't you're against them. This may be linguistic and logical nonsense, but nowadays it is political fact.

It is nonsense. Plenty of dictionaries define terrorism in their own way; are they all now considered extremists? Or by "their" side, do you mean the dictionaries are all run by terrorists? I'm sure Oxford and Webster's would love to hear that. Why, as an encyclopedia, should we refrain from telling the truth (that people have defined this, over and over again) just because some nuts will think that means we're taking sides in the "war"? -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

A good illustration of the contradiction can be found in the definition in fact offered here. The article starts out saying the term has multiple definitions, but then says, "Intentional violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as 'terrorism'..." -- which looks and sounds pretty "definitional", to me. Problems then arise with every word in that definition. "Intentional", for example, causes difficulties for even its simplest applications in basic criminal law, in defining and discerning "mens rea" and the rest. "Violence" defies definition too, both syntactically and semantically: was Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" when he merely "thought about" violence? or when he "prepared to use" violence, but then didn't? -- was Patrick Henry a "terrorist" because he "advocated" violence? because he used "violent words"? -- is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater 'terrorism'?..., aka. what does it take?

Firstly, it's not "definitional". There are many definitions of terrorism. It's just that the particular action stated, "intentional violence against civilians", happens to be considered terrorism by most or all definitions of the term. Some may define that as the definition, but others may simply include it as a possible terrorist action.

Secondly, "intentional" is defined as "done or made or performed with purpose and intent". It does not mean "having the intent but not performing the action". Hence, questions about thought versus deed are moot; it's only the combination that is considered "intentional". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

And "civilians" is even more problematic, as the article recognizes: it makes very little sense, in fact, in the modern war-making world -- even as supposedly-qualified by the other vague term "non-combatants" -- civilians have been participants in warfare at least since Napoleon's "massed armies" -- and since the Fall of the Wall, and the end of the bi-polar Cold War, any armed resistance to forces-in-power has been "not in uniform".

You counter your own point here -- "armed resistance". The "typical definition" on the page states "unarmed and not in uniform". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

So the "terrorism" definition offered here, even couched and qualified as carefully as it is, simply defines any armed resistance to established authority as "terrorism". If they're not "civilians or non-combatants", then what else would they be?... But that's not linguistics, or logic, it's a political position.

Show me a government that will try to quell resistance by sending in unarmed, out-of-uniform officers. Then maybe I'll call that resistance "terrorism". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

The article needs to step back from even saying that "terrorism" is a "term" amenable to "definition" nowadays, then. See George Lakoff and Hannah Arendt and Harold Lasswell, among many others, on the appropriation of previously-neutral terminology for political purposes. Certain rightwing political parties, in various countries, have appropriated the term "terrorism" for their own political agendas, now, and even merely suggesting that the term has any sort of "definitional" meaning puts Wikipedia into their conservative / reactionary / "established power" political camps -- as vs. anyone who disagrees with them, or who wants to change the established political system, somewhere, peacefully or otherwise...

By your definition, our only option is to delete the Terrorism page altogether; after all, if we define it, we're POV right, and if we don't define it, we're POV left.

I think we have properly addressed the non-conservative views of terrorism in addition to the conservative ones, by way of NPOV and representing as many sides as we can. If that's not enough, then we can add more. Perhaps if you can find us a reference, we can add a paragraph about how "some people feel terrorism cannot be defined, and that to do so is to support the 'War on Terrorism'". -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

The problem, simply-stated, is the old one of, "one person's 'terrorist' is another person's 'freedom fighter'". By offering current "War on Terrorism" efforts the possibility of a neutral or even value-free definition, for their favorite term, the article lumps together all armed resistance to established authority as "terrorism": Nelson Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Gandhi... George Washington... -- most who ever have resisted established authority have been labeled "terrorist", or the equivalent, by those who feared them or fought them.

And that's fine. That's one definition. Not everyone shares it. We should not censor such definitions just because some people might call important historical figures "terrorists". Maybe they were. Who are we to say? If a notable number of people call them terrorists, or subscribe to a definition that does so (even if they have never consciously called those people terrorists), it's part of Wikipedia's duty to report that. -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

That is why we don't have an accepted international law definition of "terrorism" now, and are unlikely ever to have one. My own understanding of the travaux préparatoires and political contexts is that efforts to define the term in various treaties, throughout the last century, including those listed at,

International_conventions_on_terrorism

-- all were frustrated, every time, as people sought exclusion from the definitions for their own personal "freedom fighter" national heroes -- the Indians and Israelis and their supporters, during the late 1940s, the Soviets throughout the Cold War, and many before and others since -- more current examples nowadays would include Mandela, for most of us, and the US Armed Forces vav the International Criminal Court for our current US White House and political administration, and for many US citizens -- and, always, nearly any "original Founders" of any society, anywhere...

I would hate to think that we now have become so settled, and so sclerotic, that we really do want to accept the current established systems of all of us everywhere as "the end of history", so that we simply can lump together all who now and will oppose and call that "terrorism". But that is what the article's "definitional" approach here does. It would be naive at best, I believe, and pretty smug -- also unrealistic, and not historically accurate, as change will be coming again just as it always has.

So in the lead article here I would say terrorism is not "a controversial term" but "a current political issue" -- i.e. in place of the current, non-neutral, initial wording,

"Terrorism is a controversial term with multiple definitions."

-- I would go further and use, instead,

"Terrorism has become a controversial part of current political policy."

-- and then proceed to outline the politics of it, providing references to Lakoff & Arendt & Lasswell et al.. Otherwise the article runs afoul of a fundamental linguistic and philosophical problem: that there is nothing simply "definitional" about terrorism, nowadays, even though some would like to sidestep complex and difficult issues by hiding behind definitions -- category mistake, at the very least... "Terrorism" has become a meaningless buzzword for central controversies in our entire global and societal situation, now, and deserves explanation as such.

Ask most people on the street what terrorism is (particularly in today's post-9/11 world), and I think you'll get answers. For a 'meaningless buzzword', people assign a lot of meaning to it -- even if there's no consensus as to what, exactly, that meaning is. -- Wisq 19:12, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Kudos on the article

Having been part of the debate for this article for a long time, it was pleasantly surprising to see it at this level of clarity and completeness. Nice work all. However the "No concern for civilian life or safety" reads like an apologism for state violence. This could be corrected with some pointed clarification and distance from accepting terms like "collateral damage" and "precision guided munitions." Also do not use weasel terms would apply to phrases like "these actions show some concern" and "a finer definition will.." Understanding that the intent is to show a spectrum and to qualify each, it fails to distance itself from the subjective, using a "we can define" approach rather than "is commonly asserted as" approach. "many actions can define a criminal act as non-terrorism" is problematic - certainly this is a very fine distinction indeed - whether a an "terrorist act" may or may not be a "criminal act" seems to miss the point that "terrorist act" is used to perjoratively characterize an enemy attacks as criminal, and likewise to refer to particular acts of violence as being part of a larger immoral philosophy. -SV|t 23:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sociology and evolution paragraph

Any evidence or links for this nonsense? Genetic disposition to violence? Unquestioning acceptance of authority? Dehumanizing other people? Brainwashed? Sounds a lot like a description of Americans. -Anon

I agree with most of the above. Below is the questionable pg in question, by Wisq:

"It should be noted that social psychologists, evolutionary psychologists, and sociologists who have studied ethnoreligious conflicts via controlled experimentation have a very different view of the etiology of terrorist violence. For them, terrorism is almost invariably the result of an interaction between genetic and environmental variables. Terrorists are most easily created when a person with a genetic predisposition to violence and to unquestioning acceptance of authority comes into contact with an ideology that dehumanizes another group of people. Given sufficiently strong ideological indoctrination (known in common parlance as brainwashing ), a large segment of virtually any group of people will engage in acts of violence against civilians. Examples of this behavior include the Holocaust and the widespread mass-murders that have occurred in recent years in Sudan."

Uh, what? I sure didn't write that! :) Relevant edit diff aside, you can tell because I use British spellings -- dehumanises, behaviour. Those show up as red in my auto spell checker, too. -- Wisq 02:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Very, very, very bad start

"Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states, as an alternative to an open declaration of war." Let's be clear that everyone in Europe that was watching TV on September, 11 at the right time the second plane crashed on the second tower and had a brain had two ideas in mind "This is a new Pearl Harbor" and "someone (or something) has started a war with the USA". However this is very unencyclopedic way (to say the less) to define terrorism as an alternative to a declaration of war... Terrorism is using means that are intended to cause Terror to achieve political purposes. Ericd 23:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Definitions of terrorism

(I have put a copy of the new revision at User:Smyth/Terrorism, and am updating it with any other changes people make. – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 10:49 (UTC))

(following on from #Re. "First paragraph", and generally agreeing with "A definitional view"):

I agree that the word is now so loaded that attempts to provide any kind of objective definition are doomed. I would even go so far as to say that Wikipedia should not, under any circumstances, call anyone a terrorist, even when guarded by weasel phrases like "the following are viewed by most people...".

However, the fact that the word is still used by prominent people people in politics and the media as if it had an objective definition, means that we should discuss the criteria that they tend to use. In particular, I found the Target / Objective / Motive / Legitimacy list in Definitions of terrorism very useful, as it explicitly points out what the various criteria exclude.

As the definition of this word is so controversial, I suggest that the Definitions article be reincorporated into this one. The article as it stands contains a great deal of unfocused and vague wandering around the definition (see the introduction, pretty much all of "Overview", and "Definition") but nowhere is it so clear and precise as the list mentioned above.

Furthermore, the article should begin, as it used to do, with a clear division between the objective and the subjective uses. Edits like [1] are in good faith, but we cannot escape the fact that this word is now used primarily in a perjorative sense, and that should be explicit from the start. – Smyth\^talk 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

I will go ahead with the merge tomorrow if there are no objections. – Smyth\^talk 3 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

I have now done this, and tried to excise from other sections all ramblings about the definition, of which there was a great deal. I have left the POV tag on for now, but I will take it off in a few days unless there is any evidence of a dispute. – Smyth\^talk 5 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

It's a good improvement. Do you have any text in mind for the "groups" section? As is, the article is unbalanced, since "groups" are the single most prominent perpetrators of the acts this article addresses. For the same reason, you might want to re-order the secions describing them, to have the most common phenomenon first. Also, the article seems to lean rather heavily on quotations from Chomsky. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

I'm more of a synthesizer than a writer; I don't tend to add large amounts of new material to articles but to condense and rationalize what's already there. There is no text in #Groups section because there was no corresponding text in the old version, presumably because people thought that because most terrorism is carried out by groups, there was no need for any particular discussion of them. I thought this seemed strange, and added the stub section to invite people to fill it in. But perhaps it would be better to introduce #Perpetrators with something simple, like:

The most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by relatively small and highly secretive groups. However, some acts have been committed by individuals acting alone, while others are alleged to have the backing of established states.

Then there would be no need for a section specifically on groups.

As for Noam Chomsky, he does perhaps seem overly stressed, but he's actually only mentioned in two contexts. I included his quote in the intro because it seems to sum the issue up better than any other text that was already there or that I could write myself, but if there was some other person who could be mentioned instead in, say, the #Causes section, that would help prevent the article from seeming like it was all from his POV. – Smyth\^talk 5 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)

---

(From User talk:Guy Montag, who reverted Smyth's version):

Could you explain why you thought my revision was so worthless? I also notice that you threw away the changes of four other people, none of which were remotely controversial. (I will watch this page.) – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Whenever there are major revisions in a controversial, well written article, I, and most editors cannot accept drastic unless they are discussed in talk. In many points your edits read like editorials, in other places, controversial claims are not supported by sources. I read your revisions and judged that they were inferior to the current article. This does not mean that you do not have valid, even important information to add, but it does means that the large scope of information you have added has significantly changed the article to the point where it is not recognizable. Please cite where you think the article is lacking in talk. Also, discuss where you want the article to go and feel free to suggest and provide minor addition of information to the article first, instead of changing it sentence by sentence in one edit. Each block of information you add will be discussed and if it is valid information, there will be very little objection to its inclusion.

Regards,

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

I prefer to keep discussions in one place; please reply on this page.

First, thank you for restoring the edits of the four other people which you reverted. If you examine the talk page history you will see that I proposed my changes several days ago along with my reasons and got no response. I agree that the article is not recognizably the same as it was before, but I believe that this is no bad thing as it was rather poor before.

You seem to think I have added things to the article, but apart from the Legitimacy paragraph and a comparison of "terrorist"'s connotations to "rebel" and "guerilla", I added virtually no new material. Everything else that was in my revision, was in the previous revision of either Terrorism or Definition of terrorism. I don't know what "controversial claims" you could be referring to.

I did remove a great deal of text. As I explained on the talk page both before and after my revision, this is because there was a huge amount of redundant discussion of "terrorism"'s definition spread throughout the article. Presumably this was added a sentence at a time by well-meaning editors, but its effect was both to obscure the other sections and to confuse the question of what terrorism actually is. In some places it is said that terrorism has some objective definition, in others it is stated that it is merely a value judgement. I wished to clearly separate these two uses from the start of the article. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Smyth's version. Perhaps this discussion could be moved to the article Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

Sure, move away.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on guerrilla warfare and assymytric warfare deserves to stay in this article.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

I didn't remove it! – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

I know that in the current version it exists. I mean't that if we are going to alter this page, that the passage of guerrilla warfare and assymytric warfare should stay.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

It exists in all versions. Now could you please respond to my message of 01:22, or at least explain specifically what was so bad about my revision that reverting was a better solution than editing? Quotes would be helpful. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

Radical Redefinition Idea

I've noticed the same problem here as I did on the page for totalitarianism. By attempting to find examples to fit the definition, contributors create partisan, heavily POV discussions that simply lead to the rather foolish concept that "it cant be defined". I'm willing to bet that with BOTH pages that if we remove, and enforce ongoing removal, of any and all examples, historical and current, regardless of wether a consensus exists on the worthiness of the examples, then a consensus can be reached on the definition. Then the reader of the article will be free to form his/her own conclusions on what entities fit the definition. I'm going to attempt it. Tom S.

As I did in totalitarianism, I have done this to the first few paragraphs to see if anyone else concedes on this idea. I think this is the best way to reach a consensus for both pages!  :) Tom S.

I have yet to see any evidence that there was a lack of consensus about the new version. The text you have removed gives examples of things that are not terrorism according to various definitions, which I believe is vital for understanding what the various criteria are trying to do.

Then why does this page look radically different than it did yesterday? Oh well... I guess we'll just all have to admit that there are some touchy subjects that even Wiki cannot handle... But I'm not willing to give up yet. Tom S.

I never argued that the word can't be defined. I argued that there were very many definitions, that they were inconsistent with each other, that there were several broad aspects which many definitions contained, but that because the word is so perjorative, the technicalities of the definition are relatively unimportant. As I said above, I'm all for Wikipedia not calling people "terrorists", just as it shouldn't call people "evil", but removing all real-world examples of any kind is not the answer. – Smyth\^talk 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

I'm trying to AVOID the idea of the word being left in the limbo of undefinition, not point any fingers at anyone for not defining it. I did not mean to offend or cast aspersions on any other users. My whole idea was to remove real-world examples because, as stated, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". If we leave examples in there, we may either spark contraversy and thus a round of edit-wars or at best miss out on an offended user's possibly valid points. If someone were to accuse the US of terrorism, for example, it would rankle my nerves and make it hard for me to stomache reading the article, as does whitewashing the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Applying the concept of the simplest solution being the best will significantly shorten the article, and provide a clear and succinct definition of what terrorism IS. All I know is that on this talk page and from what I've seen of the article in just a few days is that I do NOT see a consensus on this page. It still has the contested neutrality warning, after all. Tom S.

• Tom, I see what you're getting at, and I note the (similarly underdiscussed) proposal a while back to ban all the (Insert Adjective Here) Terrorism simultaneously.

• I'd ask all considering Tom's suggestion to look at perpetually venomous talk pages like this one and Talk:Zionist _terrorism and evaluate whether it's really worth defending a standard under which people are, often, constantly spending their time trying to destroy each other's work.

• We could be defending a different editorial standard, one that 90% of the people contributing in good faith could actually agree on. (Gasp.) And yes, if we remove all the examples, we should remove all the examples from the Lone Wolf section, too. Mission would then become keeping anybody from adding any examples, lest the Troubles start again. Sounds like a tall order, but it has been done. (See Just war.) BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

We have one person so far who disagreed with my revision, and he hasn't really explained his complaint yet. Could you both look at it and decide whether it's an improvement on the old version? Having something clearer and better structured to start from, as I believe my revision is, would make it easier to discuss your proposal.

I should point out that I am also all in favour of banning articles called (Whatever) Terrorism. But that's for another day.

And I still disagree with your proposal right now. As far as I can see, the "lone wolf" flamewar, like most of the others on this page, was caused by a small number of people all intent on maximizing the amount of mention that their terrorists got and minimizing the amount of mention of their freedom fighters. Detaching this page from the real world and making it into some sort of abstract philosophizing about a hypothetical concept called "terrorism" may stop these wars, but it won't make it a useful article. Encyclopedias are about the real world. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

With all respect, the subject heading here suggests that this talk is about, not your revision, but Tom's idea, which may not yet have been sufficiently examined. BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Then I apologise, and invite you to contribute to the section above. – Smyth\^talk 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an 'abstract philosophizing about a hypothetical concept'. What I want is for this page to focus on a definitive, logical and plain explanation of the very real concept of terrorism. I believe it can be summed up quite simply as "guerrilla action against civilian and/or symbolic rather than military targets". But whatever definition we choose, the removal of examples will prevent the revision wars I see going on now. By my definition, Al Qaeda is undeniably a terrorist organization. But what good does it do to say that and have some offended sympathizer revise the crap out of it? Examples are not necessary on this page. A simple definition and exploration of the concept will suffice; we're not dunces. We can, all of us, extrapolate such reasonings in our own minds. Adding examples just invites people on both sides to flame eachother and abuse Wiki doing it. By my own definition, I am forced to admit that the attack on the Cole was not a terrorist action. I hate admitting that. But giving such a simple, coldy logical and very real version of this page will force people to admit such uncomfortable truths and take the page for the simple expression of FACT that Wiki is supposed to be. Real world examples of terrorism will in the end be nothing but INTERPRETATIONS. And that is neither NPOV nor does it belong on Wiki. Tom S.

What do other editors think of Tom's comments? BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

I lean to Smyth's position. I think that if terrorism is defined well enough, examples enhance the page and make it more useful. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Your definition is well-worded, but insufficent because it ignores the VERY strong negative connotations that the word carries. The Pentagon is a military target, therefore the 9/11 attack on it was not terrorism. For the entire period that he was in prison, the U.S. government, using a definition similar to yours, had well-known saint Nelson Mandela listed as a terrorist. The fact that these things are difficult for you to accept is not a problem with you. It is a problem with the definition I was using, your definition. Calling someone a terrorist is no longer an objective description of their actions, it is almost always a statement that you consider their actions to be wrong, and if the article does not make that clear, then the article is incomplete. – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Smythe, was your comment directed to me? Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Oops, no, sorry. *corrects indentation* – Smyth\^talk 7 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

If AL-Qaeda add shot a missille on the Pentagon this would probably not have been terrorism. But they crashed a civilian plane. Ericd 8 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Yes, but the plane was not the main target, and it would still have been called terrorism if the plane was empty. The point is that by arguing over all of these civilian/military and government/guerilla distinctions, we're losing sight of the way in which the word is actually used. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Jayjg Revert Dispute

On 8 July 2005 User:Jayjg reverted the Terrorism article with this explanation: (Highly POV, original research, and often incomprehensible definitions are "not encyclopedic".) [See History]

I contend that my article adheres to the Wikipedia NPOV philosophy and that User:Jayjg’s reverted article does not. I invite others to work with me to find a definition that we can all agree upon.

I also contend, as do many others, that User:Jayjg uses the revert function to restrict factual and beneficial information that he doesn’t want seen. I point to the following examples as evidence of this.

1. User_talk:Jayjg#Please_stop_edit-warring_with_your_POV.21
2. User_talk:Jayjg#Blocking
3. User_talk:Jayjg#Soapboxing.3F
4. User_talk:Jayjg#Your_Terrorism_Revert
5. WP:Point Vandalism Complaint
6. User_talk:Jayjg#Striver
7. Special:Contributions/Jayjg

I include this evidence to see if you agree with my User:Jayjg contention. If you feel the same way, the next step should be to have him demoted and blocked from articles that he reverts. Your input is appreciated. --Zephram Stark 21:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with him personally, then maybe you should seek comments elsewhere than this page. – Smyth\^talk 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It’s really more of a dispute with User:Jayjg’s revert. I had no idea that User:Jayjg did this to other people before I went to his user page and found revert complaints from people all over Wikipedia. In every instance that I read, User:Jayjg had trashed a well-written, objective and NPOV article in favor of a revert that only served to confuse and hide historical facts. Many lucid articles have been lost and good writers have even quit Wikipedia because of User:Jayjg’s persistent reverts to his revisionist history, but that’s between them and User:Jayjg. I’m simply going to do what it takes to make sure his biased views don’t override definitions that I help write. From a NPOV, there is no reason why we can’t come up with an objective definition of Terrorism, or at least a group of objective definitions.

Those who trash constructive and balanced articles, instead of incorporating them, show their obvious distain for the community process and blatant disregard for presenting all sides of an issue. If they keep doing it, we have no choice but to block them from changing the definition. --Zephram Stark 01:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Definition dispute

A definition that claims there is no definition is of no help to anyone. Jayjg, if you have a problem with part of my article, change it, but don't revert it to a non-definition. Terrorism has to be defined as something. Does anyone have a problem with terrorism involving terror? Of course not. So you can at least define Terrorism as something and go from there. When someone takes the time to turn a cop-out non-definition into something that is usefull to a researcher, at least show him the respect to keep the parts you like. I am going to post my introduction to Terrorism here in Discussion and I would like to know specifically which parts you or anyone else have problems with. We can edit it together and make something everyone can be happy with, but saying that nobody agrees on a definition is not an acceptable encylopedia entry. If you choose not to critique the intro below, please refrain from reverting it when I post it to the article.

Terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion. While expansions and limitations of this definition are widely used, everyone can agree that terrorism involves terror. Unless we also include horror films, haunted house amusements, and roller coaster rides as terrorism, coercion must also be an essential element of the definition.

Because terrorism has negative connotations, additional constraints are often placed on the definition in order to suggest the guilt of one’s enemy and the innocence of self. For example, in the 1991-2005 American-Middle East conflict, Arabs accused Americans of terrorism through the use of military and economic sanctions resulting in the deaths of millions of Iraqis as a means of coercing compliance to UN preconditions. At the same time, Americans accused Arabs of terrorism through the use of airplanes steered into buildings resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Because the airplane attack of 11 Sept. 01 included no entreatment, Americans claimed that the Arab imperative of that assault was an implicit charge to either leave them alone or give them money. In stark contrast, the organizers of the attack claimed that the World Trade Towers were “strategic military targets” in their fight against globalization and held absolutely no bargaining value. Thus, a coercive motivation attributed to an act has historically been deemed necessary in order to apply a label of Terrorism.

Additional controversial constraints applied to the definition include:

• the targeting of civilians;
• a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal;
• the exclusion of guerrilla warfare;
• immorality as defined by the user;
• a non-governmental perpetrator;
• violence, or the threat of violence; and,
• in extreme cases, even the exclusion of the coercion constraint.

Conventional warfare is generally considered to be more effective than terrorism because the coercive element of terrorism is hard to control. Two instances, however, where terrorism yields a certain advantage are: as an immediate precursor to an open invasion, and as a means of motivating an overwhelming and often proud force to restrict individual freedoms for the purpose of increasing the ranks of an insurgency. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Highly POV, original research, and often incomprehensible definitions are "not encyclopedic". Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

There is no definition of Terrorism right now. We need a definition. Are you purposefully trying to destroy the philosophy of Wikipedia? We are here to work together to build something productive. Give me an example of something specific and let's work it out together. You have been called out several times because of your POV reverts. It is time that you start working with the members of our community instead of against them. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

The article actually points out there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then goes on to discuss the various definitions used. Paragraphs like

Because the airplane attack of 11 Sept. 01 included no entreatment, Americans claimed that the Arab imperative of that assault was an implicit charge to either leave them alone or give them money. In stark contrast, the organizers of the attack claimed that the World Trade Towers were “strategic military targets” in their fight against globalization and held absolutely no bargaining value. Thus, a coercive motivation attributed to an act has historically been deemed necessary in order to apply a label of Terrorism.

are POV, original research, and nearly incomprehensible. Please also read the comments by Smyth below. And finally, please focus on article content, not on me. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

How can I focus on problems with the article, Jayjg? You keep saying that it’s basically all bad. What do you disagree with? In your opinion, did the 11 Sept. 01 attack include any form of entreatment for the Americans to do something differently? Did you think there was explicit coercion involved? Do you think the Americans attributed other motivations to the attacks than the ones I mentioned? Do you think that Usama bin Ladin did not call the World Trade Towers “strategic military targets” in the fight against managed trade? Do you disagree that coercive motivation has historically been associated with the term ‘Terrorism’?

Exactly what do you have a problem with? If you will not tell me, I have no choice but to assume that you are being competitive in nature. Let’s find a NPOV together instead of dismissing a good article as not relevant to the POV you would like the world to adopt. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

Start here: first, read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Then, find sources for every assertion you make in that paragraph; who said that "the Americans claimed that the Arab imperative of that assault was an implicit charge to either leave them alone or give them money"? Who said this alleged claim was "because it included no entreatment"? Which of "the organizers of the attack claimed that the World Trade Towers were “strategic military targets” in their fight against globalization and held absolutely no bargaining value" and where? According to whom does "a coercive motivation attributed to an act has historically been deemed necessary in order to apply a label of Terrorism." What does all that mean in English? And finally, please avoid commenting on or speculating further about my beliefs or motivations; this is viewed as personal attack in Wikipedia and is forbidden by policy. If you cannot desist from doing so you will find co-operative editing impossible. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Thank you for finally clearing up the parts that you have a problem with. If you have no knowledge of these facts, I can't imagine how you think you have enough insight to edit someone else's work, let alone revert it out of hand. Nevertheless, I will delete the parts you have a problem with until I can find links to definitive proof of each fact. If you or anyone else has a problem with any other specific part of the definition, I encourage you to speak up. Terrorism needs a definition. Can you imagine opening any other encyclopedia and seeing nothing but vague hedging for the first five paragraphs? I see that you have no problem with Terrorism being linked to the Wikipedia definition of Terror, so we can start our article there. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Be fair Jayjg, if we all had to go and find sources before we wrote anything, we wouldn't write anything. The problem with his edit wasn't so much that he wasn't citing sources, it was that he jumped straight into a deep discussion of 9/11 and economic-sanctions-as-terrorism before he'd even finished the preliminaries of defining the word. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

The article as it is says: There is no universally accepted definition of "terrorism", and then goes straight into a detailed discussion of the various definitions that have been used. That isn't a cop-out, it's an accurate reflection of the actual status of the word. Like all other definitions trying to be objective, the use of terror as a means of coercion is not good enough. What's "terror"? The London bombings were, in my opinion, terrorism, but they didn't cause widespread "terror", as in "a state of panic". "Shock and awe", well that's just "terror" in different words. Unless you define "terror" as "bad violence, not the good violence that we use from time to time", your definition is either circular or incorrect. And when you define it as such, your definition becomes the same one as is already in the article's first paragraph: a broad pejorative term, characterising an enemy's actions as being an immoral use of violence. This is a subjective definition, because "terrorism" is a subjective word.

There is one thing in your edit that I think the article lacks right now: a discussion of "terrorism" used to describe actions that are economic, political, or otherwise non-violent. I think that deserves a section under #Definition. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

I just found Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/"Terrorist" archive, which makes interesting reading. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

“The Great ‘Terrorism’ Debate” in the link you provided seems to be centered on how much terrorism is used in different contexts by different people. When we consider these usages in terms of trying to create an NPOV definition, we must discount propaganda. Biased usage of the term for political gain cannot yield a NPOV definition. The only NPOV definition that consistently accounts for some acts in the article being considered Terrorism, while others are not, is that Terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion.

Terror is defined separately. A link to it is provided. Definitions are supposed to start out broad/generally accepted, and work their way toward detailed and controversial. That is a far cry from starting an definition by essentially saying, "I don't know."

You start with what you do know. You know that terrorism involves terror. You know that terrorism does not include roller coasters. You can build on that. You don't have to say that there is no definition. That doesn't do anyone any good. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

I followed the link to Terror. It says, a state of panic, or, see Terrorism. That's not helpful.

"Terror refers to a pronounced state of fear, where someone becomes overwhelmed with a sense of immediate danger." This is the Wikipedia definition. It also refers you to terrorism. I'm not sure what you are getting at. Do you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of terror? Are you saying that terror can't be defined, so terrorism can't be defined either? With this argument, it seems pointless to try to define anything. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

The article does not say there is no definition. It says there are many definitions, they vary widely, there are common points between them but none of those common points are sufficent on their own, and no combination of them is universally accepted. It even does what you suggest, starting from the most broadly-accepted criterion (violence), then the second-most broad (immorality) and then the others. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that terror is not a common attribute of all definitions of terrorism? --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

For the third time, I am not saying that terrorism can't be defined. I'm saying it can't be defined with a definition that implies that the word is objective. Just look back through the archives of this page and see the endless repetition of arguments caused by other people thinking they've finally found one. If terrorism is coercing someone with a pronounced state of fear, then all warfare is terrorism, all violent crime is terrorism, all childhood bullying is terrorism. And take what happened in London – maybe there was terror for a few minutes in the immediate aftermath, but that quickly gave way to shock, and the most the attackers can have been hoping for in the long term was a slightly heightened sense of unease. talk 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

All warfare does NOT use fear for coercion. Conventional_warfare is conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics. The purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating his ability to engage in conventional warfare. It does not seek to persuade the enemy to give up freedoms. It does not seek to subjugate, coerce, or police. Even though the natural effects of any war can enable these feelings, the purpose of conventional warfare has nothing to do with intentional fear or intimidation.

All Violent_crime does NOT use fear for coercion. Murder is an example of a violent crime that requires neither. If we use Webster’s Unabridged definition—Terrorism: the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion—no violent crime would be considered Terrorism because the terror involved is neither methodical nor is it characterized by a system.

I agree with you that typical childhood bullying fits every classic (pre-9/11) definition of terrorism. In fact, the bully typifies despotic governance as per Webster’s International Dictionary definition of Terrorism: a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by terror and intimidation.

I agree with you that use of the word Terrorism in connection with the recent attack on London is arguable. I personally believe that many people were terrified, and that changes will be made to the law because of that terror. I also believe that the purpose of the attack was systematically carried out in order to motivate changes to the law. Therefore, I believe that the attack on London was a systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

In every example you give, use of the classic (pre-9/11) definition of Terrorism defines the act perfectly. There is no reason to redefine the term as “there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism," except for political reasons.--Zephram Stark 9 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

"Terror", in it's normal meaning, is neither necessary nor sufficent. Are you sure you're not subconsciously defining "terror" as "what terrorists do"? Because that is an important secondary meaning now, but it's not one that's useful for defining either word. – Smyth\ ^talk 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Now? Does “now” mean ‘after 9/11’? If it does, that’s my point exactly. We can’t redefine words to become more ambiguous to fit political propaganda. Wikipedia’s definitions must be from a neutral point of view. The Introduction I proposed—-before User:Jayjg reverted it in favor of the biased, existing non-definition—-included the common components of every classic (pre-9/11) description along with expansions and limitations proposed by both sides of the post-9/11 redefinition conflict.

I agree that there have been several definitions of Terrorism used over the centuries, but before 9/11 they all included the use of terror and at least some type of coercion. Classic definitions were never constrained to “non-governmental perpetrators,” “unlawful acts,” “premeditated acts,” “violent acts,” “political or religious motivations,” or “the targeting of civilians.” These constraints were only added after 9/11/01 by Americans for the sole purpose of propaganda—-in other words, our beloved president called the attack “terrorism.” How was it terrorism? Where was the coercion? How were our actions against Iraq not in the same category? We needed a new definition of terrorism. That’s where the ambiguity came into play.

I can think of only one explanation for why User:Jayjg would revert a good and NPOV classic definition—-giving equal time to both sides of the controversy—-back to “There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism.” User:Jayjg obviously doesn’t want Wikipedia to have a conclusive definition of terrorism because codifying it in ANY manner would show how our beloved president’s use of the term is inconsistent, contradictory, and brimming with irony.

I’m sorry, Mr. Smyth, but it is unacceptable for Wikipedia’s version of Terrorism to be tied to no objective definition or group of objective definitions, when every other dictionary and encyclopedia is able to do so. It is also unacceptable to bias definitions for political reasons. After all the finger-pointing and smoke-screens are gone, there will be a main definition of Terrorism, and it will be the classic definition. If you want to write Bush’s vague description of terrorism as a side bar, please feel free to do so. --Zephram Stark 9 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I am certainly not in favour of Bush or any of the things he has done. I don't know whether Jayjg is, but I'm pretty sure that his reasons for disagreeing with you are the ones he says, not the ones you think. – Smyth\^talk 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Just so that there is no misunderstanding about this, I am conservative and I voted for Bush as president, but that doesn’t make him good at redefining Webster.--Zephram Stark 03:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a detailed argument about every one of your points because I think you are missing the general point. Yes, I was too strong with my use of "all", but:

• Conventional warfare aims at "terror" if it uses direct large scale attacks to demoralise the enemy, whether the enemy is civilian or military. Furthermore, there are many definitions that use "violence" instead of "terror", and it is even easier to fit warfare into these.
• The rapist uses terror to coerce someone to have sex with him, the robber uses terror to coerce someone to give him their property, and if the criminal commits these acts on a regular basis or as a means of making a living, then they are being systematic.
• I'd have thought that the inclusion of the bully as terrorist was an argument against your definition, so I'll say no more about it. :)

By "now" I meant especially after 9/11, yes, but the same thing applied long before it. "Terrorist" has been used in a strongly negative sense for a long time, and even before 9/11 no-one would use it to refer to themselves or anyone they supported. Now here you are talking about your "classic definition", as if it was the one and only one. Have you tried Googling for define:terrorism? Have you seen how diverse the results are, even the ones that try to be objective? Yes, it would be nice if every word could be given a simple and undisputed definition, but this is not such a word. Saying "look, that's all my dictionary gives", isn't good enough, because a dictionary doesn't have room for the kind of in-depth discussion that we're supposed to provide.

Please try and step back from the immediate problem. Your proposed introduction starts: Terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion. While expansions and limitations of this definition are widely used, everyone can agree that terrorism involves terror., but this is clearly not the case, as is shown by the history of this page and others going back years before we came along. Please look at that history and see how many times people have done similar things to you and got hopelessly entangled in arguments like this one. This is the reason why the introduction cannot be as direct as you would like. – Smyth\^talk 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that there is a place in the article for a "classical" definition, but it would have to be worded carefully and it could not be presented as the primary meaning of the word. Here is a suggestion: acts of sabotage for political or ideological purposes, outside the context of an open war. – Smyth\^talk 23:05, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually said “classic,” not “classical.” Conventional warfare, by definition, uses conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics. Demoralizing the enemy is not a conventional tactic. Your assertion that some definitions use “violence” instead of “terror” is exactly why those definitions cannot be used. The term “Conventional_warfare” is used to describe acts of war that are specifically NOT Terrorism. There is no overlap. We have two distinct definitions so that we can communicate effectively. By blurring the definition of Terrorism, we reduce our ability to convey distinct ideas.

Terrorism is a type of warfare that relies on the target’s willingness to give up its freedom. This is the polar opposite of conventional warfare that assumes the target will fight until it no longer possesses the capability of fighting.

When it comes down to it, Terrorism has an objective definition that is compatible with all pre-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias. In addition to that definition, there is a George Bush usage of “Terrorism” which has no objectivity, as evidenced by the inability of anyone to define it.

In the interest of effective communication, I think we should go with the definition that actually conveys information. What do you think? --Zephram Stark 02:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)