Talk:History of terrorism/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Terrorism?
- 2 Twentieth century
- 3 Reign of terror & anachronism
- 4 Absences
- 5 NPOV
- 6 super-empowered angry man
- 7 Missing stuff
- 8 Black Hand and Archduke Ferdinand
- 9 Reichstag fire
- 10 Lockerbie bombing
- 11 pictures
- 12 PLO or anti Israel terrorism
- 13 Ireland
- 14 Early History of terrorism
- 15 Silly revert war
- 16 Mikkalai's objections
- 17 OR
- 18 Rating
- 19 ETA
- 20 Fair use rationale for Image:Shokoa.jpg
- 21 Recent Edits
- 22 Paramilitaries in Ireland
I think this article should also include information, on some of the first terror attacks in North America, such as The Boston Tea Party, Tar and feathering of British Tax collectors, and of cause the use of Biological Warfare on the Native American Population. (unsigned)
- In reply to the unsigned comment above, The Boston Tea Party did not involve the deaths of anyone, it was a protest which caused property damage. It wasn't meant to terrorize anyone. The Tar and feathering of British Tax collectors, I feel, did have some element of terrorism in it, although no one was killed. Also, as members of the government, I don't think they qualify as innocent civilians. The use of biological warfare on the Native Americans was more murder than terrorism, in that it was an attempt to kill them rather than spread terror for political reasons. Fanra 05:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Much of this section seems suspect to me. I just did some copy editing and changed some language to appear more objective, but the basic premises require citations. A cursory look at the SOE page, for example, does not suggest that they were engaged in terrorist activities. What is the source for the "super-empowered angry man" quote? I will add more citation tags, but I'd like to see a more scholarly section. It seems to me that the history of terrorism is not such a politicized topic that we cannot achieve a well-researched article with a neutral point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taranah (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
given that terrorism is a load term i think you've going to find it difficult, the whole one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. i would say the reign of terror was terrorism for instance, it was terror directed at civilians for a political end. but a french republician would disagree. similiar you call the IRA terrorist in a Dublin bar your likely to leave with a few less teeth. as for the SOE i've heard that they were essentially what we'd call terrorist (they invent plastic explosives) but can anyone fighting nazis be called terrorists but then that my personal believes. i heard the super-empower angry man i think it was a quote from an Israeli mossad chief about suicide bombers it was applied to the oklahoma bombings so its got to be quite old. James L Williams 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I placed a Disputed tag on this issue. I strongly object to labeling the SOE as a terrorist group. The example used is blowing up a bridge. If we go with that example, then every Allied (and indeed Axis as well) airplane bomber crew member is a terrorist for dropping bombs on bridges. The key definition and the one I placed at the top of the article is if you deliberately kill innocent people. The SOE never killed innocent people on purpose. You can make a argument that bombing cities with the sole purpose of killing civilians is a terrorist act, especially the fire bombing of Dresden. However, if I put that in the article, I would make it clear that is a controversial issue with which people disagree. Fanra 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If deliberate kill innocent people is the definition then the IRA aren't terrorists, plus from the perspective of most terrorists those they kill aren't innocent. also under your definition then the UK Police are terrorist since they have on multiple occasion killed innocents must recently shoot an innocent man in the head seven times. The SOE are terrorist from there mandate from churchill to set europe ablaze, to there tactics and technologies (they invented the carbomb and plastic explosive for god sake) to the destruct of infrastructure, and the death of civilians how you discern innocence seems subjective but the people on the norwegian ferry they blew were by most people standards innocent they just happened to be traveling on a ferry carrying heavy water.
- First, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.
Next, it is a difficult term to define. However, the key point is "[any action] intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians", the GOAL HAS to be to cause harm to civilians.
As for the IRA, I'm still working on that, I didn't put in what it says about the IRA here. As for the UK police, in general, official government agencies are not considered to have committed terrorist acts, they are generally considered criminal acts, however, I am open to listing them if it fits. Listing the RIC is on the table.
As for the SOE, Churchill's comment to "set Europe ablaze", can mean whatever you want it to. Destruction of infrastructure is not terrorism, it is property damage, although destruction of the only source of water in the desert might be considered such, if it is designed to kill civilians by thirst. The Norwegian ferry bombing had the GOAL of destroying the heavy water, not killing civilians.
I am open to adding anyone to this article, no matter who they are. But we need reliable sources and Neutral Point of View must be observed. Fanra 09:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- What about the European terrorist groups like the ETA or the Baader-Meinhoff Gang? Or what about the narco-terrorists of South America like FARC and ELN? As for the definition of terrorism, I don't think the deliberate killing of civilians is required, I believe the base requirement is the illegal use of violence (i.e., any other manner than state against state) to effect political change. Thus, SOE cannot be considered terrorists, because they were members of the military of a state, conducting operations against the military of another state, during a state of legally declared war. Parsecboy 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- To me this doesn't make sense - anyone fighting the military of any country are terrorists? As long as operations are limited to targetting military personnel I doubt that any reasonable person would label that terrorism. And the other way round, military performing mass executions of the enemy's civilian population would not commit terrorism. So the use of legal violence (highly disputable term especially when directed outside of one's own borders) cannot reasonably be the splitting criterion on which to decide terrorism. BigRed 10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you're replying to me, then you misunderstood what I said. If the forces are targeting only military forces of a foreign power, then they're not terrorists; they're better labeled insurgents or guerrillas. If they're indiscriminately using violence to effect poliical or social change, they're terrorists. However, if the military of a state were conducting mass executions towards some end (i.e., not just for the hell of it), they would be committing terrorism. State terrorism, in fact. The definitions of "legal violence" are quite well defined at Just War. Parsecboy 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously it is an understatement to suggest that there is one correct definition for terrorism, however, there seems to be some criteria associated with accepted terror groups. In his book Political Terrorism (1983), Alex Schmid states a few interesting points; 1)Terrorism is an abstract concept with no real definition, 2) a single definition cannot account for all the possible uses of the term, 3) Many different definitions often share common terms, 4) the meaning of terrorism derives from the victims or targets. Even the U.S. Government cannot agree on a single definition for Terrorism: Terrorism is the use of threatened use of force designed to bring about political change - Brian Jenkins. Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systemic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to creat fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, ususally to influence an audience - James M. Poland. Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to initmidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - FBI Definition. The U.S. Department of Defense's definition is almost identical to that of the FBI's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evldice (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Reign of terror & anachronism
I moved this here. Although popular belief traces "terrorism" to the so-called Reign of Terror, this section lacks sources and it certainly needs to be demonstrates that, although the word "terror" was clearly employed by Robespierre & al., "terrorism" is much more dubious. A "history of terrorism" shouldn't start by making dubious anachronism. The cited Mark Juergensmeyer does not speak about "terrorism", but about "public acts of destruction" (which, doubtlessly, are as old as mankind itself). Most scholars who write about terrorism related it to end of 19th century propaganda of the deed — and the term itself of "terrorism" was most probably coined after that. Note that propaganda of the deed did not entail massive, undiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, but rather regicides, tyrannicides and other forms of assassinations — which, for immoral that they might be, are not "terrorism", which is best defined by "a deliberate strategy to terrorize the civilian population by a campaign of mass bombings in order to convince a state of negotiating with the terrorist group". Terrorism was then much employed during national liberation wars, as these were some of the first asymmetric conflicts. Starting by the Algerian War, during which the colonial power did not so much lose the battle on the military field, than on the political field - in particular due to its use of counter-terrorism tacticts, involving a systemic use of torture.
It dates back to 1795 when it was used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of post-Revolutionary France, the so-called "Reign of Terror". Jacobins are rumored to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves . The English word "terrorism" was popularized in English when it was used by the conservative Edmund Burke, an outspoken opponent of the French Revolution and the Terror . Acts described as Jacobin Club "terrorism" were mostly cases of arrest or execution of opponents as a means of coercing compliance in the general public. According to Mark Juergensmeyer, these were "public acts of destruction" that lacked military objectives and which inflicted a public sense of fear.<ref>Juergensmeyer, Mark. ''Terror in the Mind of God''. 2nd ed., University of California Press. (2001), p. 5</ref>
If you really want to re-include this part, I suggest to back-it up, in accordance with WP:VERIFIABILITY, with nice, explicit quotes, demonstrating that the term "terrorism" really was used in 1793. Tazmaniacs 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
you could put it under etymology of the word? James L Williams 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It wouldn't change the absence of sources linking the term "terrorism" to the "Reign of Terror" (which, by the way, is an English word; in French it is "la Terreur," or "the Terror"). Either case, I have a book on guerrillas & terrorism right in front of me, and as most specialists, the author traces the earlier form of terrorism to the Russian nihilist movement. Tazmaniacs
- I put in information on the Reign of Terror and the word terrorism and have backed it up with sources. If you disagree with this, please state why you think my sources are wrong and link some sources of your own. I also put in that it is a theory, not a fact, just to make everyone happy. Fanra 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
why are the Irgun of Israel and Sons of Liberty of america absent?
- First, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.
Second, not only is the Irgun and Sons of Liberty absent but so are dozens of others. If you look, you will see that this article is in the beginnings. There is just a bare amount of information here. If you have some information, please add it. I've been trying, in my spare time, to make this article into something decent. However, it takes time to do so. Any help would be appreciated. Just remember a few things, first, this isn't a list of all terrorist actions, that has its own page, see the See also links. Next, NPOV must be observed. Next, the acts must be terrorist acts, by the definition given in the Lead section. For example, the bombing of the King David Hotel does not qualify because it was a administrative and military center of British rule, thus, it was a military target and not a civilian one. However, other attacks by the Irgun, such as the random attacks and killings of Arabs, are terrorism. Fanra 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
i was just looking through the edit history and looks like Tazmaniacs is trying to push an POV Sherzo 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
super-empowered angry man
Nice little quote there. However, this is an article about the "History of terrorism", said paragraph doesn't belong here. If you can find the moment in time when terrorism changed from something else to this in your source, then please put it in the correct place in the timeline, otherwise it doesn't fit in. Fanra 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I just restored i assumed it was unnoticed vandalism, like that london bridge is falling stuff. Sherzo 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I surprised by the ammount of stuff missing, why no mention of the black hand and the assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke that lead to world war 1, the Reichstag fire or the night of broken glass in nazi germany, the Mukden Incident in china. why are so many groups absent such as puerto rica national groups, anarchists and the Weathermen in the US, Red Brigands particularly in germany and greece and Nationalist movement like ETA and unionist like the UVF in Europe and groups like Solidarity in eastern europe or the various religious and national groups in the former yugoslavia, in asia there's no mention of the various national, communist and religious terrorist such as tamil tigers or Aum Shinrikyo, similiarly in africa there are no mention of the numerous terrorist groups such as the Libyan resistance. in south america there's no mention of narcoterrorism or the various socialist fronts.
also for a "history" of terrorism it seems pretty limited its scope, wasn't spartacus a terrorist or the christians who burned Rome, or the various religious sects through the medieval europe and the near east?
and where are the various American Revolutionaries, surely the sons of liberty were terrorists?
also who unlaterality how terrorism would be defined as such for this article? it seems any def given by a political organisation is going to be self serving
essentially this reads like an anglo-american persceptive of terrorism with little regard for that experience by the wider world, the one break from this is the part on the SOE and cold war proxies however this has been tagged i would say unfairly for neutrality. Sherzo 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you read above, ABSENCES, you would see the answer to your post has already been posted here. I'll repeat it here:
Not only are the ones you listed absent but so are dozens of others. If you look, you will see that this article is in the beginnings. There is just a bare amount of information here. If you have some information, please add it. I've been trying, in my spare time, to make this article into something decent. However, it takes time to do so. Any help would be appreciated. Just remember a few things, first, this isn't a list of all terrorist actions, that has its own page, see the See also links. Next, NPOV must be observed. Next, the acts must be terrorist acts, by the definition given in the Lead section.
As for your complaint about the definition of terrorism, the article is useless without some kind of definition. Since we need some kind of definition, I felt using one picked by the United Nations would be the most logical one to use. If you disagree with it, then please post here your definition with the source (since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).
Again, your complaint about the SOE has been answered above. To repeat what I said, you need to give us some sources of SOE committing terrorism.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of having to defend SOE. The idea that SOE was a terrorist group is laughable. I'm sure the Nazis called them terrorists but the Nazis are not exactly a neutral source. Destroying bridges and electrical power stations during wartime is not terrorism, unless you want to call all wars terrorism. In which case we can change the definition of terrorism to, "Any time anyone hurts someone or damages property" and just list everything starting from 100,000 BC when Ogg hit Grogg over the head with a rock.
Fanra 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
you last comment is a complete strawman, i will attempt to add stuff but i listed it since i don't know sources off the top my head and am generally against adding unsourced material especially on such a controvesial subject. I also think the article show clear NPOV if your going to include the IRA who never delibrately killed innocents they phoned advance warnings (did the SOE?) then the SOE and the various unionist terror groups should be included also, and by the same not if the SOE is not included niether should the various freedom fighter groups the US funded to defeat totalitarianism of communism. the SOE were not the SAS SBS or Commandos, they were specifically not soldiers they worked with every resistance group in WW2 and did damn fine work but even if you want to get into semantics, there contribution to the tactics and technologies used in modern terrorism is certainly of note. but the issue was trying raise was that this is clearly from an anglo american viewpoint anyone they consider to be terrorist is listed anyone they don't or if it wasn't committed against them its not, surely the Aum Shinrikyo are worth mentioning since they were the first terrorists to use chemical weapons (i think) but since it was against japanese people its absent. Sherzo 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't add the IRA, so don't use that as an argument with me. I'm still working on reviewing the IRA to decide if they belong here. Until I finish my review, I was leaving in the IRA information someone else put in. I am very careful about removing anything put in an article until (and unless) I am sure it doesn't belong.
As for the SOE, if they developed some tactics used by terrorists, then that should be noted. I need to research the SOE some more. But since, as far as I know, the SOE never, ever, targeted random civilians, they don't qualify. Also, as a arm of the British government, abet a secret one, if they did, that would be a war crime, not terrorism.
Next, your accusations of my having an Anglo American viewpoint I have already addressed TWICE. You refuse to read or acknowledge my reply. The answer is a.) I've just started this article and b.) since I am an American, I put in what I know. If you look, you will see that as soon as someone mentioned the Irgun, I put them in (after researching it). The other things you mentioned, I commented on here. If you would name things, I can research and include them. Expecting me to both know about the entire world and to have the time and energy to put it all in this instant is unreasonable. Shinrikyo is certainly something I want to work on right away but until I just read you mentioning him, I had forgotten about it. If you really want to do something about the "Anglo American" viewpoint, then you can start listing all of the other things you think should be included or even better, add them yourself. I only have 24 hours each day and I don't spend them all here and I put in things in this article when I get to them. If you want me to put in everything right away, please send me a check for my labor. Fanra 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- As for your other comments, I'm working on adding the Contras (state sponsored terrorism by the USA), I just haven't gotten around to it yet, as I need to research it and confirm. Fanra 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if seemed like an attack that wasn't my intent, i was placing my problems succiently, and i would like to applaud you on what is diligent and hard work on this article you are a model wikipedian and should be proud.
the reason i have add stuff myself directly is because i lack sources i was simply remembering off the top of my head and from college. the point with the comment on anglo american bias is often feels with terrorism articles is you often get the impression that terrorism began with 9/11. i also feel your definition of terrorism is wrong if they aren't easily indentifiable as combatants (not in uniform) and carrying out violence designed at influence the politics or policy of the state then its terrorism. so i would class the king david hotel bombing as an act of terrorism similiar i would class many of the SOE operations as terrorism and i believe the nazis may have been the first to coin the phrase particular for groups like the french resistance and SPD all of which were trained and supplied by the SOE.
I will be having some free time soon so will endeavour to contribute to the article. Sherzo 08:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Starting with the Ferdinand, he was not, in my opinion, a civilian. Therefore, it was either an act of war, or a crime, but not terrorism. He was not a civilian for two reasons. a.) As a member of the Royal Family and next in line for the throne, he was a government official. His duties were highly political since he had (or would have had, once gaining the throne) a large influence on the policies of the government. b.) I assume he actually was a member of the military. Although the article on him does not say he was in the military at the time of his death, in 1883 Franz Ferdinand entered the army with the rank of third lieutenant. Also, every photo of him shows him in uniform.
Next, as for the Black Hand, while one source says they actually claimed to be terrorists, the only act of violence I can find a source for is the assassination of Ferdinand. If I can find some sources that list some violent acts against civilians, that would work. Fanra 03:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly an act of terrorism, it was a politically motivated attack, by a clandstine group. The assassination of political figures is terrorism just as if some one assassinated the president. Sherzo 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree that assassinating the president (any president) is necessarily a terrorist act. I am willing to admit, however, that my definition is not shared by everyone. This might qualify. Therefore, I will add it in. Fanra 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
First, the definition of terrorism (which is disputed, I know) says, "[any action] intended to cause death or serious bodily harm". The Reichstag fire did not seem intended to cause anyone harm, since the building was pretty much empty. Next, who set the fire is under dispute, but either it was the act of a single man, who seems to have been an arsonist, or the act of the Communist Party or the Nazis.
Generally, the idea that the Communist Party was responsible is dismissed. It is generally considered either the act of a single disgruntled man or a plot by the Nazis to get the Reichstag Fire Decree. Either one does not qualify as terrorism. Fanra 04:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The Reichstag fire was blamed on terrorists used as a pretense for sweeping new government powers, it was a violent act with a political motivation if it was the communist then it was an attack aimed at removing the nazi government, if it was in all likelyhood the Nazis then they did it to take totally power from the Enabling Act either way it was clearly an act of terrorism Sherzo 17:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Nazis blamed the Reichstag fire on terrorists does not make it a act of terrorism. However, it might be worth mentioning that it was an instance where someone labeled something as terrorism falsely for political reasons. I'll think this one over. Fanra 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fanra, you're forgetting that one of the key aspects of the definition of terrorism is that it is towards some sort of social or political change. A mass murderer who kills for sport is not a terrorist; one who burns a building in order to stamp out political opposition is. Therefore, the Reichstag fire would be an act of terrorism. Parsecboy 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
At first, I was going to say that is should be removed, because we can't list every terrorist act here because the article would get way too long. Therefore, we need to only list the ones of importance to the History of Terrorism. However, upon reflection, I feel that it is important because of the effects it had on the relationships between Libya and the world. Libya also admitted guilt and paid compensation. Later the Prime Minister of Libya said that the only reason they admitted it was to get sanctions lifted, so their admission of guilt is not very good. In any case, I feel that is important enough to get listed here and I plan on adding some more about that issue to this article. Thanks for adding it and the Gunpowder Plot. Fanra 10:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
i think the upper half of the page could use some images, however i don't know what would be appriorate Sherzo 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with adding more images. I'll have to try and find some. Fanra 13:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
PLO or anti Israel terrorism
i was thinking maybe it should be broaden, what are your thoughts? Sherzo 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think I covered the PLO enough. Always remember that this is a huge subject and the article will get way too long, that is why I have all those "Main article:PLO" type links for people to follow for more information. As for Hezbollah and Hamas, and similar groups, I want to include them. Fanra 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
eh what i meant was a combined section on the PLO, Hamas, Hezabollah Sherzo 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm against the idea of combining them. They are very separate groups with different goals. As far as I know, the PLO has renounced all terrorism, while Hamas and Hezabollah generally have only made limited statements and still continue to support the killing of random Israelis. Fanra 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I only suggested it as i thought it may be better to group them all together for a general overview, i far however far from an expert on terrorism in that region and will leave it up to. Sherzo 10:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is a difficult subject to do. Creating an Anti-Israel section would beg people to demand a Anti-Arab section. Plus, while the PLO, Hamas and Hezabollah all are anti-Israel, they are really quite different. I think we should try for separate PLO, Hamas and Hezabollah sections and see how that works out. Fanra 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
similarly i was planning to add some info on the unionist terrorist groups and was think of changing the IRA to Ireland and list both perhaps sub headed, what do you think? Sherzo 10:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Although the IRA is far more famous (infamous), it would be best to have both IRA and Unionist groups. I think that putting both under an Ireland subject works well. Fanra 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
At which point did the ORIGINAL IRA become terrorists. The definition of terrorism is targeting civilians with violence or the threat of violence for polital goals, which definitely excludes the OLD IRA and includes the more recent PIRA. They did not endorse a policy of widespread random bombing or kidnapping and/or hostage taking as their means. Their goal was simple: Through force to drive british forces of administration out of Ireland. I would like to draw your attention to the sheer number of reprisals against the Irish civilian populace by the british administration and authorities. Town burnings random shootings in the HUNDREDS. Maybe after closer inspection you may find a more suitable model for terrorism at that time.
Also too many people do not seem to know the distintion between the OLD and more recent IRAs.
Also the fact that you speculate that the Irish War of Independance and the Provisional IRA campaign of 1969 - 1994 are one and the same means that you have not studied either one. They had different aims with different leadership and different methods and actions. They were not the same organisation (see Provisional IRA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Early History of terrorism
I'm comparing this article to the notes from a course my Dad took in the 80s (he still has the teacher's name and other info, does that count as a citation?). The earliest instance of terrorism, according to that is the Sicarii. Can I add a section Ancient Terrorism that includes them and the Hashshashin. After those two, that course skipped ahead to cover the regime le Terruer and than the Naradnaya Volya (both already covered). For starters, something like "The earliest recorded instances of terrorism in the west include the Zealot Sicarii and the Hashshashin". The Sicarii already link back to the article on terrorism, though the latter doesn't. And, in the future, should I ask, or should I just do it? You know, I think I'll just do it. Moc.aidepikiw 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I decided not to include the Hashshashin because their article says they didn't kill civilians, and that is against this page's definition of terrorism.Moc.aidepikiw 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Silly revert war
You people have to read edit summaries before jumping into revert vigilantism. Specifically
- The copy of "Etymology" section safely sits in the article Definition of terrorism, where it belongs.
- I also deleted unreferenced rant about who is terrorist and who is not. This is not part of "History of terrorism".
What's up? `'Míkka 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the etymology of the word and its usage is an important part of the overall history of terrorism, also just leaving a empty header is poor editing if its in the wrong century or complete wrong remove it or delete it. Sherzo 11:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Forking the same content into several palce is bad idea and maintenance problem. Etymology is definition, not history. `'Míkka 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Ansicen world" examples are deleted since no reference is provided which qualify them as terrorism. `'Míkka 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hallo--You are adamantly opposed to including the ancient world section on terrorism for what exact reasons? The zealot sicarri and assassins were clearly proto-terrorists, but you refuse to admit it--why? Microsoft encarta is cited to support these claims, and then you ridiculously argue that Microsoft Encarta is an invalid source (as compared to what--Wikipedia's own unreliability)? So I am trying to understand what is the psychological background to your refusal to admit this information on the page. Perhaps you would like to discuss your psychological motivation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:05, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
- Miscosoft encarta does not call hashshashin terrorists. You may draw parallels, but you cannot call them "terrorists". Killing rulers and members of their family and their supporters by poison and dagger was quite popular tradition in old times all over the world.
- My deletion of the sentence is clearly explained in the edit comment: "killing Christian Crusaders" may be called "terrorism" only by extremely twisted mind. In this way you may label, say, Josip Broz Tito WWII terrorist #1.
- For the case of zealots I restored the reference, after verifying the credentials of the author. `'Míkka 05:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
On the West Wing 9/11 special Issac and Ishmael it referes to the hashshashin as the first terrorists, are you saying that NBC, Aaron Sorkin, Martin Sheen Rob Lowe etc have extremely twisted minds?
- Yes I do. We have a definition of terrorism. In nomerous versions of it the common denomnator is "targetting of civilians". If someone uses this word as a politically motivated slur this does not mean they give a definition of terrorism. Please don't confuse heated political rant with scholarly definition. Not to say that all your listed persons are kinda confused as to history: razing whole towns to ground was a popular tactics of terror to make others surrender way before the birth of Jesus the Christ. Wasn't it terrorism in its condensed and distilled form? `'Míkka 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article contains a list of acts from various historical periods classified as "terrorism". Unless you provide references to reputable sources which explicitely describe particular events as "terrorism" and write who exactly call them "terrorism, the corresponding items will be deleted soon as original research. `'Míkka 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- which ones are causing you a problem? they all seem pretty accurate to me? but then one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. what would you call a neutral source? if a British Scholar (Niall Ferguson for example) calls the Sons of Liberty terrorist an American calls them Freedom fighters, whos correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- In wikipedia, thre are two kinds of facts: "real facts" and opinions. if a British Scholar calls them "terrorists", it must be presented as "opinion of the British Scholar", rather than "pure fact", possibly countered by some other opinion (s). BTW, you have yet to show me a British Scholar who called them terrorits. `'Míkka 00:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. The popular cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" does not have any contradiction you seem to hint at. `'Míkka 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The most part of article is unsourced and seems to be a propagandist view than a serious scientifical research. The topic is very painful for many regions, nations and societies and maybe its preferable to have less info but sourced than this original work. My opinion is to delete all the unsourced info with disputted or dubious context and rewrite the article according to different (not one) reliable serious scientifical researches. We should keep only the most obvious and well-known facts of terrorism history, to not mix fightings/ armed conflicts, partisan wars/ wars/ dynamite usings and terrorism. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
how is it propagandist? "should keep only the most obvious and well-known facts of terrorism history" thats far more propagandist since who's version of history or terrorism would you use? Iran's? the US? Ireland's? Israel? Palestine? the UK? "to not mix fightings/ armed conflicts, partisan wars/ wars/ dynamite usings and terrorism." but surely those definitions are based solely on individual point of view? i think the article at present is the least POV it can be with regards to whats covered, the only improvements could be cover more, such as ETA and cover the existing more fully such as Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I rated this article as Start class primarily because it seriously lacks sources. There are about 20 sources currently; for an article this size, especially given that it's just a recounting of historical events, we should have quite a bit more than that. The article doesn't have a single source for quite well known events like the Pan Am bombing, or, for example, only 1 reference for the PLO, and it's for a direct quote. This issue needs some serious attention if people here are concerned with increasing this article's quality. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
are sources need for well known not contested events? at what would be the benefit of randomly ascribing sources to the pre written material, and if the material was changed to reflect the sources wouldn't that be copyright infrigement or plagarism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why ETA (or the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) isn't represented in this article? Its activities in Spain and France have lasted from 1959 to the present day, and have included everything from assassinations to car bombings. Yovinedelcielo (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its any malicious effort not to include its just outside of Spain and France its not that well known, feel free to add stuff, if its something of which you have some knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Shokoa.jpg
Image:Shokoa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
i've given it what i feel is the justification i guess its upto you to decide if its fair. out of interest has time complained about its use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
the recent edits seem to me to be a POV push and giving disproportate weight to what the american govt defines as terrorism, what does anyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
i've got to agree a clear american pov, and as stated on the discussion on lockabie this article can't list every attack, as it would become to long and there is already an article listing individual attacks. obviously 9/11 is an important event that deserve individual mention, but it might be worth writing a para on the islamic terrorism since the attack. Sherzo (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Paramilitaries in Ireland
should the Blacks and Tans, Ulster Defence Regiment and Special Patrol Group (RUC) be listed as terrorist? or would that be murkying the waters too much? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|