Talk:History of terrorism/Archive 4

Talk:History of terrorism

Complaints

Cerejota feels that too few "opinions" are being included that there are too few sources, and that these sources represent POV and the sections bias. since we've asked for examples, to no avail i've got some simple question i think you should answer.

• 1 what sources are in your opinion are POV? (though surely all sources represent some POV)
• 2 what specific sections show bias?
• 3 what opinions are missing?
• 4 what sources are missing?

If you can answer these than we can actually address the concerns, but this requires you to actually addresses specifics and read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does Cerejota need to respond when you can read extensive criticisms on all those points from me in this talk section?Haberstr (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

cerejota raised the tags, so i was giving cerejota the chance to defend the driveby tags before removing them,

also your arguments haven't dealt with those issues they've dealt mainly with your attempts to push various POVs and all have been resoundingly defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.66 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"History of 'terrorist' groups" substitutes for 'history of terrorism'

Obviously those in love with "History of terrorist groups" -- and the consensus was that that entry was to be folded into "History of terrorism" and not the other way around -- have decided to replace "History of terrorism" with "History of terorist groups," with all the POV that necessitates. Nearly all the groups in the titles of the various subsections here do not and never have described themselves as 'terrorist groups', and many RS agree with those self-descriptions. All of the previous needs to be acknowledged in an NPOV history of terrorism. In fact, even by a fairly broad definition of terrorism it's clear no stable criteria is being used to give a group the 'honor' of it being the title of a subsection. All of the preceding is obvious, except to those confused about why various experienced outsiders sometimes visit here and tell us of the entry's massive and fundamental POV problems.Haberstr (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

not really it states facts thus avoids the POV of the narrative and the history of terrorism groups was mcen creation to put to use the work that was excessive for this page, you make statements fawning ignorance or flatout, about when and why things happen is now getting tiresome, as are the 5 odd sections you feel the need to start to rephrase each topic that you fail to make the case for.

You don't seem to understand that it is POV to very strongly imply that the groups in the subsection titles are terrorist, even though there is much RS saying many or most of them are not. One easy solution to the obvious, glaring POV is simply to re-do the subsection titles by geographic region.Haberstr (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

man do you ever get tired of pushing povs? you make these claim to RS but they always fall down when people actually read them.

No, I won't get tired of pushing the POV out until we have an encyclopedia article.Haberstr (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

lol your one the one pushing it in, i do love you constantly cite RS says this and RS says that, its like a child who's just learnt a new term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much the whole problem with this article. It is a coat rack to criticize groups as terrorist, rather than an encyclopedia article on the history of terrorism as a political and military strategy/tactic.--Cerejota (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When does this article criticise any groups exactly?

Look at WP:coatrack for the technique used to disparage many groups simply by classifying them, in what is ostensibly and sometimes popularly considered an 'objective' encyclopedia, as terrorist groups.

then the page should be deleted because that problem is systemic, but all the entries are sourced which is why its considered objective, and luckily remains that way despite the actions of editors such as yourself

You don't present any evidence that I'm pushing a POV, and just attack. That's not proper 'assumption of good faith' form.Haberstr (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

the evidence is quite extensive in the talk archive, good faith exists before action we have seen from actions that such faith shouldn't be extended to continue to do so would be foolish and naive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.63 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

'Cold War proxies' section should only be for 'terrorist' groups fighting the U.S. or Soviet Union?

This seems fairly obvious from the word 'proxy', and yet the Contras, a group fighting the Nicaraguan government, has been placed in that section without explanation. Of course, all information about the Contras' terrorism has been removed as well. Since the PLO was supported by the Soviet Union for much of its history, shouldn't it, to be consistent, be removed to the 'cold war proxies' subsection too? I'm hoping for substance and logical consistency in any explanation.Haberstr (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

not really proxies could be used by both sides in angola for example the USSR used Cuba and the USA used South Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.63 (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

POV and OR; the USSR 'used' Cuba? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, so how are you certain of that? The Cubans don't say they were used by the USSR. My POV is that the U.S. created the Contras because it opposed the Sandinistas. Others' POV is that Reagan created the Contras (as a U.S. proxy) because he thought the Sandinistas were a proxy of the Soviet Union. We aren't supposed to make choices between those two competing POVs, but putting a group in the Cold War proxies section does just that. Unless it's certain a group is a proxy, it should not be placed in that section.Haberstr (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No its called having an education and knowing the subject matter, but its just example, all you do is push POV you should just sticking the facts and making productive contributions like Mcen, Sherzo Fenian then you'd have far less trouble with other users! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.63 (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you make some rude categorical statement and leave it at that -- "I, 86.25.183.63, know the subject matter and have an education and you, haberstr, do not." You never actually respond to my argument and my evidence. It is POV, not 'education', to decide for encyclopedia readers which RS point of view is true and which RS perspective will be disappeared. Case in point, the certainty that the Contras were a 'cold war proxy' (which, of course, is one possibility that needs to be provided to readers) and definitely not a group the U.S. supported because it didn't like Nicaragua's Sandinista government.Haberstr (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

consensus on the previous discussion which is now closed i guess was to roll the contras into the cold war proxy, the comment on education refered to the example i gave you with reference that a conflict had be one proxy against one power whereas throughout africa central american etc they both used proxy to avoid the risk of direct confrontation and why that could escalate too, which if you read up on you'd know about, ah well. As for all sources no you don't otherwise wikipedia would be bogged down with POV pushers such as yourself and their fringe sources, for example the article about the earth would have to include hollow earth flat earth donut earth etc and thus making everything relevant to whatever so user with agenda has to say, losing the salient detail in a munschia useless pov pushes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.16 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Whether or not the Contras were a U.S. anti-Soviet proxy or not (which Reaganites contend they were) is commonplace RS disagreement. Not everyone agrees with the Reaganite argument that the U.S. was fighting the Soviet Union by supporting the Contras. Actually, most RS think that's completely bogus, and that the U.S. simply wanted to overthrow the Sandinistas.Haberstr (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a proxy for the US, and the consensus was that it be better placed within the coldwar proxy section than in its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.130 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a very well documented proxy, I remember the hearings, I think Haberstr you should take a step back as it seems you're quite invested in the subject. Sherzo (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, perhaps you should document your 20-25 year-old memories. At present the contention that the Contras were an anti-Soviet guerrilla army (or whatever you're contending) is citation free.Haberstr (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, your source, which is a good addition, says nothing about the Contras being a cold war proxy.Haberstr (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

do the POV pushes ever stop with you haberstr?

tag removal

There is an ongoing discussion around the tags. Please do not remove until this discussion gives fruit.--Cerejota (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

no there isn't you've archived them, and have failed to respond both here and on your talk page when challenged to give any specifics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.63 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not archived anything, someone else did, in an unusual, manual, and non-discussed fashion. However, archival of a discussion doesn't mean the discussion is over: many articles continue to have the tags because the issues raised by them have not been resolved, even if there is no active discussion in talk. I have not failed to respond either. In fact, it has been others that have failed to respond for the reasons the tags are present, or have responded with unconvincing arguments that do not address the content, only the editors. If you continue to remove them, I suggest we pursue further dispute resolution, as you are already accusing editors of vandalism in edit summaries, and misrepresenting their actions in talk. --Cerejota (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have yet again failed to provide ANY JUSTIFICATION for them, you have repeatedly avoided answering any direct questions about them, you seem more interesting in keeping tags you won't defend on the article than justifying them, i have repeatedly posting here and on your talkpage and you have failed to respond to either, so the only person being dishonest is you! You have yet again failed to provide ANY JUSTIFICATION for them, you have repeatedly avoided answering any direct questions about them, you seem more interesting in keeping tags you won't defend on the article than justifying them, i have repeatedly posting here and on your talkpage and you have failed to respond to either, so the only person being dishonest is you! and again you don't justify them here where you have apply opportunity instead discuss semantics yet not discussing the issues until you do discuss the content of the tags i will remove them as unjustified because you have failed to offer any justification for them!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.157 (talk • contribs)

This is not true, and your edit summary was misrepresented. There is an ongoing discussion on this topic and the issues spoken about have not been fixed, or responded in the detailed fashion expected. One very relevant, outstanding issue is that there is no justification for this essentially being a list of organizations called terrorist or considered For an article on "history" it has very little history not available in other articles. Two sources provide a quarter of the sourcing. There is not a global perspective. Etc (Please see archive #3, although you were part of those discussions). Content that helps solve these issues is removed without real explanation.

Lastly, I ask you to please: 1) Provide truthful edit summaries 2) Engage in good faith discussion to resolves outstanding issues, including archived discussions in talk.--Cerejota (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

my edit summaries are always truthful despite being directly asked to multiple times you have failed to offer and specific defence of any of your tags. I'm well aware of the conversations you've archived all of which were left without response from you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.130 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't archive anything, it was another user. Please see the history. I did partially revert the archiving and now it has been fully restored. Furthermore, when I placed the tags, I gave explanations as to why, and In this very thread provided specifics. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be the case here. Responses such as those given by you which are basically "you are wrong because I say so" are not productive. The reality is that this article is very far form being a good one, as I have explained. Please engage in productive counter criticisms, for example, explain to us why do you feel that it does have a world-wide perspective? why do you feel that it should not be checked for neutrality? etc etc etc --Cerejota (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My response have time again as have other users asked you to provide SPECIFICS to this article, yet you choose to ignore them, you have not once explained anything, instead rely on vague comments for tags that you have provided no basis for. You are the one placing the tags, and i think first you should do as has previously been asked explain why you feel it does NOT! then others can respond accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.135 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First normally i would say you shouldn't remove tags, its just bad form if they been added in good faith, however in this instance it does seem cerejota wants to avoid discussing in any detail the reasons behind adding them. Cerejota i cant see any specifics in this thread, would you mind highlighting them for me? Sherzo (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will address additional specifics, once you reply with something more substantial to the above points, and those in the archives. Simply saying that no specifics have been provided, and then when they are, playing blind, doesn't cut it. As others have pointed out, this articles may, most specific, problem is that it is not a history of terrorism, but an overview of groups considered terrorist. There is a huge difference between the two topics. Now, that is a very specific criticism, and this is not the first time it is made, so please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Cerejota (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

the only person ignoring anyone is you, you ignore retorts and haven't post an actual defence of even one of you tags in over a week and have consistently failed to respond to any challenges raise about them.

In fairness adding unjustified tags can be considered vandalism if i went to say michael collins article and slapped on a notability tag, if the editor cant justify them then they can and should be removed, So really all that required is for Cerejota to make a defense of each tag as it specifically relates to the article. As short vague statements do nothing to solve the issues, because ther's no way to look at anything specific, as for your claim "problem is that it is not a history of terrorism, but an overview of groups considered terrorist. There is a huge difference between the two topics." well first thats wrong its clearly a history, second there has to be some measure made for that approach as history of terrorist groups was merged back to this article but if your asking for a narrative structure then you're contradicting some of your other tags. Sherzo (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this answer by Sherzo:

"problem is that it is not a history of terrorism, but an overview of groups considered terrorist. There is a huge difference between the two topics." well '[1] first thats wrong its clearly a history, '[2] second there has to be some measure made for that approach as history of terrorist groups was merged back to this article '[3] but if your asking for a narrative structure then you're contradicting some of your other tags.

'[1]"first thats wrong its clearly a history": So your first 'defense' is that Cerejota called it "an overview of groups considered terrorist" rather than "a historical overview of groups considered terrorist"?

[2]"second there has to be some measure made for that approach as history of terrorist groups was merged back to this article": So your second 'defense' is that accomodating merger forced us to make the history of terrorism into the history of terrorist groups?

'[3] "but if your asking for a narrative structure then you're contradicting some of your other tags." What other tags? I think I can speak for reason here and suggest that most of the article needs to be 'narrative' (if what you mean is chronological narrative) but a probably substantial minority should be topical. For example, at the outset we need a "definitional issues" section to inform the entire chronological narrative. At the start, or at least in the 19th century section, we need a short topical section on 'propaganda of the deed'. We may need a short section on 'state terrorism', too.

Objectively, then, you haven't offered any real defense (i.e., with a reason that doesn't seem like an excuse) for this entry being a history of terrorist groups rather than a history of terrorism. I wonder why you nonetheless continue to defend the terrorist group structure.Haberstr (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1 strikes me as an opinion just as Cerejota offers an opinion. 2 well given that history of terrorist groups just took to content of this article and rearranged its structure there really isn't a problem merging the two. Haberstr you never speak for reason you only speak for POV, a narrative would only create problems of Bias and POV and though your a fan it doesnt belong in a wiki article. I love how it always come back to your POV push on state terrorism though. The article structure is fine as is and is better and less POV than alot of articles dealing with similar subject matter, it relates the facts shows the development and does not offer judgements, its the best you can hope for a difficult issue and needs to be defended against POV pushers such as Haberstr!

Is the above you again, 86.25.183.63? Anyway, more evidence-free charges . . .Haberstr (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No its Larry Sanger's ghost! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that Zasulich was a founder (or member!) of Narodnaya Volya

Hopefully, 86.25.183.63, you've reviewed the current wikipedia Narodnaya Volya article and the easily accessible scholarly material and will agree to allow at least this change to 'your' page. My guess is that there has been some confusion between Vera Figner, who was a founding member of Narodnaya Volya (there was no 'founder', the group was founded by a small committee), and Vera Zasulich, who shot a Russian general and became famous a few years before Narodnaya Volya existed.Haberstr (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, I was wrong, and looks like you've decided to revert that too, including the photo of the 'wrong Vera' attached to the subsection. Vera Zasulich also has a wikipedia page, where you can learn she opposed Narodnaya Volya's assassination campaign.Haberstr (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, but Mcen is a good edit who makes edits in good faith so i'd rather give him the chance to provide sources than just delete his hard work, feel free to add fact tags where there needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.157 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop acting like the owner of this history of terrorism entry. In this specific case, please don't pick and choose favorites and then revert; instead, either investigate or butt out. Minimal investigation will show that Mcen, hardworkng Mcen, is wrong.Haberstr (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

well normally you act in good faith to other users edits and put fact tags, before just block removing added content, unless it obviously does not belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.130 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

She was a member of group called zemlya, that split into people will and black retribution, it appears she was member of the latter not the former, despite early calls for terrorism it the progenitor group, but i'm not a expert, so perhaps mcen has sources i do notSherzo (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My research agrees with your impression.Haberstr (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, that previous group wasn't, I don't think, a 'terrorist' group at all, and I think when she famously shot a Russian general it was on her own and not doing something that the earlier group had planned.Haberstr (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr: Here's the source I used to determine that VZ was a member of NV:

Narodnaya Volya assassinated prominent officials in the tsar’s government, including police chiefs, government agency heads, members of the royal family, and the tsar himself. More than a quarter of the Narodnaya Volya were women. One, Vera Zasulich, committed the group’s first terrorist act…

Terrorism in Perspective by Pamala L. Griset. Page 7.

So according to that source, she's a member. As for whether or not she was a founder, that's unclear. As much as I hate to agree with you, based on the way you write, perhaps she wasn't. Here's the passage from page 146 of Chaliand's The History of Terrorism:

Alexandr Popov and Vera Zasulich followed Plenkhanov. There was a breakdown, and that was the end of Zemlya i Volya. The part split into two factions: Cherny Peredel (Black Repartition) and Naradonaya Volya (The People's Will). The two groups divided up the party's assets; Cherny Peredel kept the underground printing shop.

So Zasulich was part of the breakup of Zemlya i Volya and the founding of either Black Repartition or People's Will, it's unclear from Chaliand's writing. I'm willing to take Sherzo's word for it that it was in fact not People's Will, but was Black Repartition.

For future comments/revisions, Haberstr, please briefly quote (or at least cite) your main sources, rather than just crowing about "easily accessible scholarly material." - The Hardworking Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC

I used a similar source but i looked up Plenkhanov and my sources lists him as the founder of Black reparation. Sherzo (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from your very first post (after a long absence) you're taking things personally, being insulting ("Instead of crowing. . .") and assuming bad faith on my part. And then there's "As much as I hate to agree with you. . .": How does that attitude help improve this encyclopedia? As for sources, I mentioned the Narodnaya Volya wikipedia article, which doesn't mention her as member of Narodnaya; you could also look at "Vera Zasulich" wikipedia article (which doesn't say she was in Narodnaya Volya), and you could also punch her name into google and you'll see various things come up (for example, the marxists.org dictionary) none of which say she was in Narodnaya Volya. As for your source, if you had put that into the entry, then there wouldn't have been the glaring problem of an unsourced statement combined with available sources contradicting what the unsourced statement said about Zasulich. But at this point I've gone further than that and found the Jay Bergman biography of Zasulich, which mentions (p. 29) that she joined Zemya i Zolya after it was already established and that she was never close to being a leader ([1]). It doesn't mention her ever joining Narodnaya Volya or being involved in its activities. Anyway, I was never saying, at the outset, whether she was in the organization, just that we should keep that unsourced info out of the entry because there was no confirmation of it and apparent disconfirmation of it. This is not personal, it's about improving the quality of information in the wikipedia encyclopedia.Haberstr (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the Narodnaya Volya wikipedia article---you should not use other wikipedia pages as your main source! Mcenroeucsb (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bergman biography--excellent, thank you for citing the source and providing the link. This is the kind of work that is making this page better and better. And I took your comments personally only because, in a conversation I wasn't even involved in, you threw around sarcastic comments about me after zero provocation on my part: "Mcen, hardworkng Mcen, is wrong." But in the end, I suppose I don't mind you making such comments--but only if they are paired with an excellent citation for the article like the Bergman one above. Cheers.

-Mcenroeucsb (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They weren't sarcastic comments; I believe you are hardworking and that you were wrong about Zasulich, so I said that. I was upset that another editor was choosing to revert based purely on personal preference (in favor of the 'hardworking Mcenroeucsb'), rather than on doing some work and confirming or denying my good faith assertion that I'd researched and found out the Zasulich information seemed wrong or at least highly dubious. If I unintentionally gave offense I'm sorry; I will continue to try hard to be well-mannered here.Haberstr (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

not preference, Experience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Experience tells you I was right on this matter, so I'm hopeful you'll assume good faith on my part from here forward.Haberstr (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

one swallow doesnt make a summer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.72 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One section about one topic

Haberstr could you please only start one section about one topic, there's really no need to create 2 or 3 about the same issue, It just makes the talk page long and confusing, thank you Sherzo (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you point where has s/he done this?--Cerejota (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WW2, Definitions, "2007 better structured, 2009 much better sourced", and "Eliminate group names from all or nearly all subsection titles" "Organize by evolving 'kinds of terrorism'?" in the archive, are all multiple entries where haberstr talks about essentially the same thing but in a new section Sherzo (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, those are different topics discussed differently. Perhaps there's an overriding theme that makes you smush them together? Anyway, is there a good faith point to this little section? It looks to me like another harassment of haberstr subsection.Haberstr (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

not really there always about you trying to push an issue, losing then starting again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.212 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

vandalism?

86.25.182.135 anon IP undid changes, and removed tags claiming they where vandalism. Under no definition of the term were they vandalism. This is a bad faith edit summary. I suggest this editor (which uses other IPs in this range) reconsider the unproductive position s/he has taken: accusing editors of vandalism when there is no evidence of such is something very much frowned upon by the community, and can result in severe community sanctions. And while active participation of anon IPs is welcomed, the threshold for misbehavior regarding IPs is much lower than for registered users. It also raises suspicions of sockpuppetry, in the good hand/bad hand variety. Again I ask you to provide rationale and truthful edit summaries, and furthermore, that you address the points raised instead of engaging in unproductive edits, and bad-faith edit summaries. Tendentious editing never resolved anything. --Cerejota (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're the only vandal placing unwarrant tags you can't defend, when you offer a relevant reasons then it wont be vandalism to add tags, then i won't remove them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.212 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this Cerejota

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_terrorism#Complaints perhaps if you answered those the edit war over the tags would end? Sherzo (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my answer. In short, since the issues are many, I wanted to engage more specifically on some issues and the move to others, and I did reply with two detailed sections, including a source analysis, in which you engaged. But regardless, there is no edit war, there is an anon IP engaging in disruptive editing and bad-faith edit summaries (the accusations of vandalism are beyond the pale), and some disingeniousness all around.

The way to resolve the dispute is to resolve the legitimate issues that have been brought forth, instead of claiming that the article is somehow of a high quality.

Furthermore, even if there is no active editing or discussion, as long the issues that lead to placing the tags remain, they deserve to be there. --Cerejota (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the Issues are a matter of personal perspective, for example you feel the article needs a globalize tag, yet i feel that is no longer valid. I personally think the article is of high quality, it well written and sourced certainly more so than the majority of articles on wikipedia, That is why i disagreed with you. As you said you have only really covered one issue not those in the other tags, and the majority of editors have disagreed with you on at least a few, and you yourself on reflection removed some, is i think there is some disingeniousness on your part, with the initial tagging of the article. Sherzo (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should happen in the talk page of the article. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from cerejota talkpage Sherzo (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep and we're still waiting,

Wikiquette_alerts

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Anon_86.25.18.2A..2A_contentious_editing_and_misleading_edit_summaries_at_History_of_Terrorism

Accusing editors of vandalism while in a good faith editing dispute is pretty much a violation of all the behavioral guidelines in wikipedia. I have asked you multiple times in this talk page to stop, and you have continued to do so. --Cerejota (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the problem in the appropriate way. He/she right now is on a very disruptive 'assumption of bad faith' tear.Haberstr (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet again you don't defend the tags and instead engage in semantics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your final two edit summaries:

(unsourced, just like content on Zasulich, it be unfair to not treat them the same way)(RV as per consensus)

The first edit summary, about Zasulich, the edit I made has been agreed to by the editor you're 'defending' without his/her permission; do you realize you're damaging an entirely different section in your efforts to defend the editor that hasn't asked to be defended? The second edit summary refers to a non-existent consensus, and directly implies that I am violating an important wikipedia policy that I greatly respect.

the first is only treating an unsourced statement in the same manner you treated one, its merely being consistent something you should have no problem with, the second one if you look in the archive several editors suggested the contras since they were a proxy for the US be rolled into the cold war proxy section.

As for the "don't defend the tags" charge, I have made numerous detailed comments here and on the immediately past archived discussion page on bias, lack of inclusivity of all RS sides of the 'what is terrorism' and 'what might be terrorism' debate and other POV problems. These are fairly fundamental and in-our-face problems, and merely doing a find for unatributed uses of the words terror and terrorism is a helpful starter on violations of WP:Terrorist.Haberstr (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't place the tags unless your saying you're the same user as cerejota? and there is no way to rectify his/her complaints without knowing details, and the simply fact that when challenged they removed half of the tags should tell you something about the driveby nature of their placement.

as for unatributed uses of the word terrorism i find 3 and one was an edit by you on the Irgun, the other is in the KKK with a cite tag, the third is FLN is i guess thats down to Mcen, other than that the infrequently use of the word is either general or attributed most times both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I found 24 uses of terrorism and similar words that I feel are clearly in violation of WP:Terrorist policy. I started a new talk section for it, below. Oh, and the accusation that I stuck the word 'terrorism' into the Irgun entry is false. Please stop making false statements about my conduct.Haberstr (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this for a few days to allow for discussion about the issues at hand. Please, edit warring is not constructive and discussion will lead to a cleaner solution. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, cerejota, ball's in your court, make your case and lets get this sorted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• This page may shed some light. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

not really it says because there are tags on the page the article cant be assessed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr user page has a suggested new version of 'History of terrorism'

See [2]. My change to the history removes all group names from subsection titles and organizes chronologically and geographically. For example, instead of naming the Zionist terrorist groups in the early 20th century section, the subsection title is 'Palestine'. However, it also makes a major effort to greatly abridge the vast over-abundance of detail about the vast array of groups we have amassed, because the article is too long, the detail should be on those individual groups' and events' individual wikipedia entries, and because the article needs space for needed introductory sections: a lead paragraph, and at least the following three subsections: 'definitional issues', 'state terrorism', and 'propaganda of the deed'.Haberstr (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of it ok, the re organising by region, however this is mired by your renewed POV pushes which give it far worse POV problems than the current article, has alot less sources too. Propaganda of the deed belongs on the terrorism page, and the definition of the definition page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.242 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely awful I don't think you can really criticize the start of the current article given that, and is really just a return to your original POV pushes. Definition belongs on the definition page and deleting meaningful content to accommodate it serves neither master, History of state terrorism which would be highly disputed could exists as section on the state terrorism page, and be forked as needs be. As for the categorization I think by theme would be better than area, Nationalism not just in the ottoman empire but ireland etc, Anarchism again that way it can be expanded to include france US etc, and Race in america. Propaganda of the deed, doesn't need a separate section but should be interwoven as an evolving thread. What you've written is i'm afraid very poor, POV, lacks opinions, has bias, essentially it would be smothered in tags and is of far worse quality than the current article. It also betrays your own personal agenda and i fear you are using as the current debate as poor cover to try yet again to reinsert Sherzo (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and feel it is outstanding and exemplary NPOV, especially compared to the present article. I disagree with the 'theme' concept because it is often POV to designate groups as 'anarchist' rather than 'populist', or 'Islamic' rather than 'nationalist' (and so on), and it doesn't allow for a continuous historical narrative down the page, which is what readers expect from a history wikipedia article. If you have further specific criticisms -- I don't get much helpful advice from "absolutely awful" or "POV" without specifics -- I'd be glad to hear and consider them.Haberstr (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is far from outstanding or exemplary NPOV it has a strong POV, and is far inferior to the current article both in content and structure. As for themes it allows for better narrative flow than location since you have excised Ireland, which has a wealth of material on nationalism, and the use of violence so it allows for better historical narrative than says a defunct empire, also some place name are equally contentious such as using Palestine as a section title for everything that went on in that region. secondly the introduction of narrative increases bias problems as it has down on your attempt, because rather than sticking to the facts you attempt to tell a story and in your attempt case shoe horn in "terror bombing" and state repression etc. Losing salient detail to the common reader to fit in a definitions, propaganda of the deed and state terrorism sections is a disservice to the article and the reader, and opens the floodgate to more POV, the crusades, mongol invasions, civil wars, medieval siege warfare the assassination of Caeser etc. generally there is a very strong leftwing POVSherzo (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

False: I didn't excise Ireland. False: I used 'Palestine' for the section title for the historical period when the area was called Palestine, not for "everything". Everything else is non-specific and the stuff about mongol invasions and so on verges on absurdity. People like Bruce Hoffman and Walter Laqueur tell the history of terrorism story very similarly to the way I do it, and not at all the way 'history of terrorist groups substituting for history of terrorism' does it.Haberstr (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read your 19th century section? Ireland isn't in it. I appreciate that the section on "palestine" is historical i never suggested otherwise, but it is still a disputed term. The mongol invasion is no more absurd than including the ww2, and nazi repression and if you're arguing to arbitrarily exclude events, wars and various acts of terror against populations simply betrays your own POV. very few scholars tell it as you tell it. Sherzo (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is in the 20th century section where it belongs (we can't include everything about every group in this history). I don't think 'Palestine' is a disputed term, but if you prefer 'British Mandate of Palestine' or whatever the official name was, fine. Very minor point. To provide historical perspective, I've already included the state terror practiced against Spartacus and his slaves. I didn't do it on my own initiative, but because one of the histories of terror I read did the same thing. It's standard practice. The point is, we don't need to recite every incident of state terrorism in history, or every incident of terrorist behavior in military history (I started with Sherman's march through Georgia, because an excellent RS source wrote that that was an extraordinary incident of terror in modern military history, but to give perspective maybe it's a good idea to refer to a famous deliberate terrorization of civilians by an 'ancient' military) or every incident in the history of non-state-group terrorism (and we don't need to say 50 words about every 'terrorist' group that ever existed, but the article, at present, seems to be trying to do that).Haberstr (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to decide where Ireland belongs? thats a POV judgment, as for your state terror, since you're using the word terror rather than terrorism i think you'll find Cromwell induced quite a bit of terror as did the crusades, thats why this article should stick to terrorism and not accomodate your POV pushes.

Obviously it is not a POV judgment, it's called reducing the size of an entry that's at least twice as long as what Wikipedia prefers.Haberstr (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No it is a POV judgment you using your Point of View to exclude it despite the wealth of sources because you feel that Ireland belongs in the 20th century, as for cutting it down then why are you insert large about s of material that doesnt belong here? like a definition a section of state terrorism and the material from your previous POV pushes? i think if you wanted to cut it down you'd lose all that non relevant stuff that only serves your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.41.197 (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then if you want to reduce the article i would suggest keeping Ireland, which has more RS as significant to the development of terrorism than the Ottoman empire etc and removing, the needless and POV, Definition, State Terrorism, Nazi and communist terror, and terror bombing sections. Sherzo (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an excessive focus on 19th century Ireland reflects a European/Western bias, I don't know. Seems to me the effective and therefore influential Irish 'terrorism' was in the early 20th century. Acts of unsuccesful terrorism were a dime a dozen in the 19th century, many of the bombings and assassinations will have to go unmentioned.Haberstr (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me your using your own POV!

24 POV uses of 'Terrorism' etc., 6 dubious or incoherent passages

Below are 24 POV uses of ‘terrorism’, ‘terror’, ‘terrorists’, ‘terrorist’, and ‘propaganda of the deed’ (where it is being used as a designation of terrorism) and 6 (other) dubious or incoherent passages in the current ‘History of terrorism’ article. I follow the quoted passage with a brief explanation of what I find problematic and/or POV.Haberstr (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

24 POV uses of ‘terrorism’, ‘terror’, ‘terrorists’, ‘terrorist’, and ‘propaganda of the deed’

1.

Anarchists were the most prolific terrorists of the 19th century,[27]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as terrorists; that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

2.

Inspired by Narodnaya Volya, several nationalist groups in the ailing Ottoman Empire began using propaganda of the deed and terrorism in the 1890s, including the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and the IMRO.[33]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as using terrorism; the accusation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

3.

The group has often used terrorism, violence and acts of intimidation such as cross burning to oppress African Americans and other groups.[citation needed]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as using terrorism; the accusation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

4.

These were the first acts of "republican terrorism", which became a recurrent feature of British history, and these Fenians were the precursor of the Irish Republican Army[38].

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as using terrorism; if possible, expand the quote to include the subject and verb of the clause, and name the presumably RS person making the accusation of terrorism, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

5.

Narodnaya Volya developed certain ideas that were to become the hallmark of subsequent terrorism in many countries: they believed in the targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression' and they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age - symbolized by bombs and bullets - enabled them to strike directly and discriminately.[42]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as using terrorism; the accusation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

6.

These tactics, including bombing a crowded Arab market, were some of the first examples of terrorism against civilians.[71]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as using terrorism; the accusation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

7.

The vast array of guerilla, partisan, and resistance movements that were organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II used tactics that can be considered terrorist in nature[85].

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terrorist, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

8.

The SOE effectively perfected modern terrorism,[92] pioneering most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today.[93]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terrorism, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

9.

Throughout the Cold War both sides made extensive use of terrorist organizations to carry on a war by proxy. For example many of the Islamic terrorists of today were trained by the US and UK to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.[95],[96]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as terrorist, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

10.

NATO ran a Europe wide network called Operation Gladio which committed both false flag terrorism and would have committed insurgent attacks in the event of a soviet invasion[99].

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terrorism, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

11.

The FLN was one of the first ideological groups to use compliance terror on a grand scale.

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terror, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

12.

EOKA also organized Hagannah style attacks on civilians.[109]

'Hagannah' attacks are minimally explained earlier, but the term has been more or less used to designate or at least strongly imply terrorist attacks, so it needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

13.

[100] The group was a large scale resistance against French occupation, and terrorism was only one facet of its operations.

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terrorism, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

14.

Through the tactics of coercion terrorism,[citation needed] the FLN gained significant support for a 1955 uprising against loyalists in Philipville.

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terrorism, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

15.

Factions of the PLO have advocated or carried out acts of terrorism.[120]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe acts as terrorist, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

16.

The IRA is believed to have been a major exporter of terrorism selling arms and providing training to other groups such as the FARC in Columbia[140] and the PLO [141].

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as exporters of terrorism, that accusation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

17.

The group is best known for the “German Autumn” wave of terror in fall of 1977:[citation needed]

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe groups as engaging in a campaign of terror, that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

18.

Originally created as leftist revolutionary groups (except for the AUC), all have conducted numerous attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, and are widely viewed in the West as terrorist organizations. [159] [160]

"Widely viewed" can always be confirmed but doesn't really tell us anything, things can nearly always be stated as "widely viewed" as one thing and then "widely viewed" as the opposite too. In this case, the "widely viewed" opposing opinion on whether the groups are/aren't 'terrorist' also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

19.

In the 1980s, religious groups pursuing violent propaganda of the deed were increasing in number.[citation needed] Many of them drew inspiration from Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, especially Hezbollah.[citation needed] Other well-known Islamic groups include Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and Al-Qaeda. [161]

"Pursuing violent propaganda of the deed" is being used as a stand-in for "practicing terrorism," the encyclopedia's voice should not strongly imply that groups are terrorists; that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

20.

On September 11. 2001, nineteen terrorists[170] affiliated with al-Qaeda[171] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon.

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe individuals as terrorists; that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

21.

On December 21, 1988 it was destroyed by Libyan terrorist mid flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

The encyclopedia's voice should not describe an individual as a terrorist; that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

22.

By no stretch of the imagination did Islam have a monopoly on religious terrorism, as evidenced by Aum Shinrikyo and the bombing of Oklahoma City’s Murrah Federal Building by Christian extremists[citation needed].

The encyclopedia's voice should not categorize groups as terrorist; that designation needs to be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

23.

Like Basayev’s hospital and theater hijackings, the attack at the Beslan school was propaganda of the deed.[187]

"Propaganda of the deed" is being used as a stand-in for "terrorism," and the encyclopedia's voice should not strongly imply that groups are terrorists; that be attributed, and if there is a countervailing RS on the matter, that also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

24.

Table of non-state groups accused of terrorism

The encyclopedia should not list groups "accused of terrorism" without attributing those accusations to RS. The 'groups officially designated as terrorist is much better, but, whatever list is used, if there is an RS conflict on the designation that information also needs to be provided to readers (see WP:Terrorist).

By the way, see the JDL entry for an example of how to attribute, in quotes to a named, mainstream, and preferably law enforcement or governmental person or entity, the accusation of terrorism. FALN and PKK are also good in this respect, except FALN needs sources; PKK appears from the summary not to have attacked civilians, which makes problematic its inclusion in a list of ostensibly terrorist groups.

Dubious or incoherent passages

1.

The Al-Hashshashin focused more on the assassination of prominent political leaders, which is different from "propaganda of the deed" because by killing a political leader one is primarily enacting change directly (by eliminating the person whose policies one disagrees with) rather than enacting change indirectly (by committing some act to intimidate the enemy or make others rally against the enemy).[6][7] [8]

Assassination of prominent political leaders is one of the major "propaganda of the deed" acts, according to usages elsewhere in the article (see Narodnaya Volya subsection, for example)

2.

However modern scholars, however, do not consider the Reign of Terror itself terrorism in part because it was carried out by the French state.[24][25]. It was during the 19th century that the common meaning came into use, as terrorism transformed to be associated with non-governmental groups[26].

There is wide agreement among "modern scholars" (see Laqueur, Zalman, Hoffman etc.) that there is no consensus on the above matters. They may wish there were consensus, but they recognize that there is not.

3.

The disjointed attacks of various anarchist groups led to the assassination of Russian Tsars and US Presidents but had little real political impact.[28]

This passage contradicts itself as written, and needs to be better stated. The assassination of Alexander II did have a real political impact, just not the kind the "anarchists" wanted. Also, the assassins of Alexander weren't anarchists by most definitions of the term, and they described themselves as populists.

4.

The SOE effectively perfected modern terrorism,[92] pioneering most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today.[93]

I've repeatedly marked the two major assertions here as dubious. The first cite, [92], doesn't state that the SOE perfected modern terrorism. The second cite, [93], is essentially impossible to check, but no other source I can find on the internet makes the extreme claim it does, and neither does the Wikipedia SOE entry.

5.

The Provisional Irish Republican Army is a Irish nationalist and leftist movement founded in December 1969 when several militants including Seán Mac Stíofáin broke off from the Official IRA and formed a new organization.[136]

I think others have noted that the claim that the Provos were a leftist movement is questioned by numerous RS. Just 'nationalist' seems a reasonable compromise.

6.

It may be questioned whether the bombing was a terrorist act or not since the target was a government installation. But perhaps the it strongest argument against calling it a terrorist act is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and executed for his role in the bombing, seem to have been more to get revenge on the government rather than have any real political goal.

Out of the blue, for the first time, and very near the end of 'history of terrorism', the encyclopedia's voice is finally closely questioning designation of something as a terrorist act (even though most people consider the Oklahoma City bombing a quintessential act of terorism). The important thing is to get RS on both sides of the question, and all similar questions in 'history of terrorism'.

There are other fundamental problems with the article besides those specified above (and besides the frequently unsourced assertions), involving the bias of omitting major RS viewpoints with which some editors disagree, but I won't get into them now. I have talked about those issues on recently archived discussion pages, with 'don't compromise at all' and 'accuse commenter of being a troll' the basic reaction I got.Haberstr (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of with respect to WP:WTA -- the current stark wording, which forbids calling a spade a spade, was inserted during a lull in the summer of 2008, and has been the subject of two very heated and inconclusive discussions since then. In fact, there was a small edit war yesterday over whether it is disputed ;-) I find the habit of inserting controversial materials by stealth into a style guideline, declaring that "there is no consensus to remove" once it's inserted, and then expecting that said "guideline" will be used to club other editors over the head in editing disputes, to be somewhat less than desirable. The very to the point edit summaries by User:Sceptre at WP:WTA's history are illuminating in this light.

I think we should instead regard the specific as more important than the general, and examine the passages individually for whether the use of the term terrorist is concrete, definite, specific, and appropriate. Given that this article is a history of terrorism, it would be ironic to censor the term as unclean and politically incorrect. The relevant criteria are: did the group engage in terrorism? Is the characterization accurate and specific, given the generally understood connotations of the term? With that in mind, I think most of the worry over passages 1-24 goes away. As long as the sources cite the groups performing deeds generally acknowledged within the modern lexicon as terrorism, that should suffice.

I agree that "propaganda of the deed" is a bizarre and ridiculous construction and should be erased, except with regard to its role in the milieu where it formed part of the ideological underpinning of particular groups. With respect the 6 dubious passages, I'll comment separately.

1. This seems like a fair contrast between early and later ideologies. The phrase might be better introduced, rather than inserted haphazardly. The Definition section should be expanded in summary style to give the user an idea of what phrases like "propaganda of the deed" mean before we get into compare and contrast mode.
2. The use of the "modern scholars do not consider" thing is strange; it might be better to erase the sentence altogether, as it doesn't affect the logical flow of the paragraph.
3. This appears to be a mischaracterization of the source being cited. It might be better to say "despite striking successes, including the assassinations of Alexander II of Russia and President James Garfield of the United States, infighting and lack of organization prevented anarchist groups from achieving their ultimate political goals." That strikes me as a better characterization of what the source actually says.
4. I agree, better sourcing is required. I recall reading somewhere that the SOE did pioneer a good bit of the tradecraft and methodology emulated by later terrorist groups, but these sources don't support that claim.
5. Yup
6. The passage cited is speculative and argumentative, it should be removed. "It may be" is a classic construction for inserting one's own unsourced opinion into Wikipedia.

Cheerfully yours, Ray^Talk 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here and I appreciate every word, but the following statement assumes and sweeps away the reality that terrorism/terrorist is disputed terminology: "The relevant criteria are: did the group engage in terrorism? Is the characterization accurate and specific, given the generally understood connotations of the term?" Such confidence, but we have to ask, which of the multiple RS criteria for determining terrorism are the "generally understood connotations"? In fact, I agree most of us understand that 9/11 and the OK City bombing were terrorism, but even there you begin to get into RS controversy because some RS feel the apparent 'simple revenge' motive of OKC makes that act not terrorism. I sympathize with you and wish "I know it when I see it" worked here, but I don't think it does. The best "it's not that tough" thought I have is that news agencies like BBC and Reuters apparently have little problem avoiding use of descriptors like terrorist/terrorism except when it is attributed to a named respected authority. That inspires me to think it won't be all that hard for this encyclopedia to equal or out-do major news agencies in our NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the standard shouldn't be "if some reliable sources disagree, then we shouldn't use it." That would be going too far, as you can find sources that are generally reliable, but hold quite strange positions (such as, say, that the OK-bomb was not terrorism). Indeed, there was a school of learned skeptics who doubt that you can know everything, but they were very honest and serious philosophers.

Rather, the point is that there are certain activities that, when they occur within a certain context (such as, say, blowing up a federal building in the early morning when there are children inside out of anger at the government arising from political concerns), are terrorism. So are tossing grenades into crowds of pedestrians, car bombing embassies, etc. Let's apply the "I know it when I see it" test, and discuss when there is genuine disagreement, not because we don't have a 100% solid definition. After all, English is not a formal language. I'm very hesitant to use the BBC and Reuters as our guide to good writing, given that the Beeb in particular is at the center of a very polarized debate on political correctness. Ray^Talk 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The primary problem here is naming groups (2/3rds or more of the 24 samples I provided), not incidents, as terrorist. For example, were the Viet Cong a terrorist group because 1-2% of what it did involved bombing civilian facilities in which innocent civilians died? Do you agree, generally, that the terrorist label put on a group, unattributed, should be strictly avoided? And even regarding incidents, I realize there are some about which we can find consensus (9/11, OKC), but there are likely many more (assassinations; guerilla warfare; cases where politicians, diplomats, or military personnel are targeted and few if any civilians die) where there is severe mainstream disagreement whether they should be classified as terrorist incidents. Simply following the advice in WTA about these terms makes a consensus easier and actually would increase the information provided readers (since 'bombed a hotel' communicates much more than 'committed acts of terrorism').Haberstr (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I found 24 problematic usages of the WTA terms but also around 25 or 30 usages that I didn't see as POV. I.e., I disagree with censoring the term, I mainly focused on attribution to RS, and not allowing the "encyclopedia's voice" (i.e., the article's editors) to say what is or isn't terrorism/terrorist, and not allowing the obvious cases where editors (probably unintentionally) are attempting to get around that restriction.Haberstr (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

what were the usages you didn't see as POV? as i personally don't see a great deal of POV in the above examples Sherzo (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this is useful, first what is the WP terrorism policy as i think you've mislinked it. I wouldn't use the JDL section as an example as at current its badly written and gives off a slight POV vibe. Other than in the case where its unattributed the KKK etc, i can't really see the problem its attributed to a source and this article has very little in the way of voice, but what your suggesting would see the article reduced to a collection of quotes on terrorism rather than a wikipedia article. I do feel this claim of too few sources etc is to some degree unfair in that it appears you seem to want include sources that haven't been written yet.

1. It sourced, could be re worded.

2. Really what reliable sources dispute their claim of consensus?

3. Again if its sourced, it is little less matter of fact than the rest the article and is probably a remnant from the older more narrative version.

4. And those assertions are disingenuous, the websource backs the statement.

5. This may be confusion with the original IRA which did become a leftwing organization, though sinn fein is a left of centre party, i don't see a problem with just "nationalist".

6. Personally that seems quite badly written, but why do you feel its dubious? but if instead you're holding it up as an example of how the article should be, then it seems what you're suggesting is that every section should be divided into a for and against sub section, making the case as in anglo saxon tradition legal case.

As for the table, personally feel its much more useful than a list of groups the UK US India and EU think are terrorist, for one it lacks that bias, and two its more relevant to this article since it lists mainly historic groups which the other table excludes. It is a useful distilled version of the article, and a good piece of work.

Sherzo (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad link, I've fixed it. Here's the entire policy statement from the good link:

Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?

The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels, which may carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremism" and "terrorism" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, and so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.

When replacing one of these labels with a less controversial one, the word to be used should be decided on a case to case basis, taking into account the words' ambiguity, appropriateness and specificity in regards to the context at hand. Factual descriptions such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage-taker, kidnapper and suicide bomber, are often suitable as replacements. Assassin may in some circumstances be appropriate, but that word can also carry a non-neutral point of view (and hence such euphemisms as targeted killing). Other words to consider using, but depending context may also carry non-neutral point of view, are insurgent, paramilitary, partisan and militant.Haberstr (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, But aren't all those terms POV most organizations would consider there members soldiers not bomber, gunman, hijacker, etc. So you still have the same issue with POV, I also agree with RayAyang, that if there is some common acceptance of the term terrorist particularly when you would still be alluding to it, for example

"The vast array of guerilla, partisan, and resistance movements that were organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II used tactics that can be considered terrorist in nature"

would that be changed to "could be consider like hmm stuff, you know like the IRA and that." we'd still be alluding to the same thing but deliberately making it confusing to the reader. Secondly if its sourced shouldn't that be enough, otherwise what exactly would be in the article unquoted other than he said she said?

Ultimately you would have to rename the article which would only make it less useful to the common reader. Sherzo (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the BBC and Reuters are on the right track; it certainly makes things simpler and doesn't detract from conveying what you are trying to say, without adding perhaps unintentional connotations. I don't see the actual problem with not using terrorist/terrorism without RS attribution. As for the quotation, I don't know what "can be considered terrorist in nature" means; does it mean deliberately attacked civilians, does it mean ripping up rail lines, does it mean assassinating collaborators? So, the phrase doesn't tell the reader anything concrete. I think the quote's an example of how the word 'terrorist' doesn't communicate much because there's such a wide variety of possible meanings individuals have for the word. It's like teacher used to say in writing class: get concrete, describe it, don't rely on abstractions (like terrorism/terrorist).Haberstr (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's called history of terrorism, not history of political militancy i think you can expect the term terrorism to pop occasionally because sources use it, and word you put in its place is still going to be code for terrorism so why pussy foot around, if a source uses it then use, as for countervailing RS can you show me an article that has that structure is i can get an idea of what you mean, are the groups themselves consider reliable sources? because then isn't just a matter of propaganda for both rather than a NPOV approach, thats one policy you should check up on Haberstr!

As for the 6 "dubious" the first 4 are fine, 2 is heavily backed by academic consensus 3 is contradictory political impact isnt the same as killing leaders, as it didn't achieve their goals, as 4 you've been prove wrong on this before on the previous thread you've abandon and yet again try to push your POV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.164 (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to labeling groups or individuals terrorist, with only a few exceptions (al Queda, Timothy McVeigh) there nearly always are RS on both sides. Not exactly what you wanted, but below is an example of 'both sides allowed to say their point of view' in the 'attacks on civilians' (note that title) section from the Hamas wikipedia article:

Hamas leaders have stated that the organization expanded into attacks on civilians in response to Baruch Goldstein's attack on the Cave of the Patriarchs mosque in February 1994. Hamas' first use of suicide bombing followed on April 16, 1994 when a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden van detonated between two buses parked at a restaurant, killing eight and wounding 50 people.[199] From that time until 2005, Hamas launched many suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, seeing the attacks as a legitimate aspect of its asymmetric warfare against Israel.[200] Hamas ceased such attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April 2006.[7] Prior to 2005 there were several large-scale suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets, the most deadly of which was the bombing of a Netanya hotel on 27 March 2002, in which 30 people were killed and 140 were wounded. This attack has also been referred to as the Passover massacre since it took place on the first night of the Jewish festival of Passover. According to Israel, from November 2000 to April 2004, 377 Israeli citizens and soldiers were killed and 2,076 wounded in 425 military and other attacks by Hamas.[201] The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains a comprehensive list of Hamas attacks.[202] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members.[203] In May 2006 Israel arrested top Hamas official Ibrahim Hamed, whom Israeli security officials said was responsible for dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis.[204] According to a website relaying a report published in Haaretz, a leading Hamas figure, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, stated in May, 2003 that the organization was "prepared to stop terrorism against Israeli civilians if Israel stops killing Palestinian civilians ... We have told (Palestinian Authority Prime Minister) Abu Mazen in our meetings that there is an opportunity to stop targeting Israeli civilians if the Israelis stop assassinations and raids and stop brutalizing Palestinian civilians."[205] A similar offer, to carry out attacks only on military targets, was made in 2008 by Hamas leader Kemal Mashaal, who added that Hamas had made the same offer to Israel ten years earlier.[206]

Haberstr (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Shooting collaborators" don't all terrorists claim, they just kill collaborators, if there not with us their against us. The sentence says that these groups used tactics that are used by groups considered terrorist today, as such its a useful and informative comparison. Sherzo (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's controversial to accuse the WWII resistance groups of using terrorist methods, and you'd want to supply evidence, some obvious examples of terrorist behavior, for that. But, instead of doing that, the writer lets the label 'terrorist' substitute for telling the readers what the resistance groups actually did. That's not helpful encyclopedia writing.Haberstr (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Its called being Concise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.146 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its sourced, its not our place to decide what is or isn't terrorist behaviour, nor does it label anything it draws a parallel between the tactics resistance fighters used and terrorists, as such it provide a useful information to the reader, Rather than alluding to it, please read WP:Spade. if feel the section needs expanding then there maybe an argument for that but the article already has length issues and i'm not sure how a laundry list of actions by the resistance would add anything more to the section. Sherzo (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll agree that we should at least attribute less common applications of the term 'terrorist' to certain groups. The resistance forces being one of them. Sourcing the statement is good, but you can't have the authoritative 'encyclopedic voice' state that a controversial something or group is terrorist. That kind of application of the term needs to be attributed.Haberstr (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A less common application of the word terrorist? seems an odd statement from someone who's trying to shoehorn some very uncommon applications of the word. "Can be considered" is hardly authoritative. Sherzo (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that, when it comes to non-state groups, this 'history of terrorism' takes a very inclusive approach, and doesn't explain what criteria it is using to admit groups to the 'terrorist club'. But for states, there's a blanket prohibition on allowing any of them in. You should include a great deal in here, but explain that, for example, some experts don't think assassination is terrorism, some experts don't consider guerilla warfare terrorism (and so on); and, similarly, you should include state terrorism and terror bombings (for example) here but include that some experts don't consider them terrorism. Then we would start to have a 'history of terrorism' that actually reflected the essential fact that the RS consensus is that there is no clear definition of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources may mention there is no definite definition, however no RS talks about the items your pushing as terrorism, so you cant use the justification that it fits some definition you've chosen, because so does the Mafia in fact just about every act of violence does.

Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.72 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr do you have suggestions for each of these examples for what you feel would be in your opinion an acceptable sentence? for example 16, says believed so its not the encyclopedia voice saying it, it is merely highlighting the beliefs of others and its well cited, and exporter of terrorism is the phrase used to refer to groups that export it to other groups. Sherzo (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

restore tags

{{editprotected}}

Please restore the tags, as they are the basis of the discussion, and community visitors deserve to know what we are discussing.--Cerejota (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is rough consensus for inclusion of the tags, as the edit history will show. Only the IP user has been constantly removing it. --Cerejota (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but I'm guessing Sherzo and IP (85.etc) user are on one side, and you and I are on the other. It certainly would be rational to have the tags back, since they are the basis of the discussion here.Haberstr (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of unilaterally removing tags, but equally cerejota has avoid actually discussing them, perhaps if cerejota started a section for each one, with the arguments and examples from the article that justified the tag, then each one could be placed back after cerejota had written the relating section for it here on the talk page. Sherzo (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, because I swear I created such a thing before :D. So you are for the tags? I mean, I think there is consensus we should have the tags as a basis of discussion?--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Um. I can see putting a NPOV tag up, as there's a discussion about that. I don't see any ongoing dispute about global perspectives, factual accuracy, or whatnot. Haberstr has brought up some factual inaccuracies, to be sure, but I don't think anybody's disputing him about correcting them. Then, too, the tags were somewhat redundant with each other. I really don't see the point of restoring all of them. Ray^Talk 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, 80.5.42.... who very likely is also 86.5.... has re-entered the discussion, and he rejects all 6 of the factually dubious passages. So, yes, one of the most active members here is rejecting any of the factual changes I have proposed.Haberstr (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

you mean the copy and paste list? the tags for half of which you have removed because they weren't appropriate? What Haberstr did on the previous section is useful when you can do the same for your complaints then we can have the tags back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.164 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A right-wing and U.S.-centric point of view is a major issue with the history of terrorism entry. The two or three editors dominating the piece have adopted a narrow definition of terrorism -- one preferred within and strongly promoted by conservative U.S. thinktanks -- and refuse inclusion in this history of state terrorism, terrorist regimes, or terrorist acts (such as terror bombing) by military forces. I'd like to cover those phenomena in the history while, of course, explaining that defining them as terrorism is disputed by some (I think in fact a minority) of world RS. Most major terrorism scholars acknowledge there is no set definition of the term, and acknowledge as well that 'state terrorism' and terrorism by militaries during war can be and are in fact frequently considered forms of terrorism. This is even more emphatically the case outside the U.S. and 'the West', so the 'global perspectives lacking' tag is fully justified in my opinion. If you look back to the most recent archive, covering early March 2009, you'll see my attempt at a fruitful discussion of these problems there.Haberstr (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the way, Sherzo disagrees with me on 3 or 4 of the 6 passages I found to be incoherent or factually dubious.Haberstr (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right section for this discussion, but I want to respond to one point you bring up. You say that the editors dominating the piece (which, by the way, is you and me if we go by number of edits) "refuse inclusion" of state terrorism. Now I know that some of your stuff has been reverted without discussion, which I don't think is right. But I think the majority of us editors did not "refuse inclusion" of material on state terrorism. We think a concise section on it is fine. We were just opposed to the long insert from the terror bombing article. On a separate issue, I think your list above of "six sentences to improve" is a great step to improving the article. I haven't looked it over to see if I agree with all of them, but drawing out specific sections to improve--I think that's the kind of constructive discussion the talk page was made for. Cheers

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Really how exactly is it right wing? i'm a pretty left wing guy and i don't see it, its really quite neutral, as for US centric where exactly? US thinktanks like reliable academics and the UN. Oh this old chestnut, As in previous threads the overwhelm majority of Academic reliable sources, do not include "so called state terrorism" as it is already covered by war crimes and crimes against humanity, that is why you have not been able to provide anything but fringe sources, its why they dont appear in mainstream texts, thats why most scholars don't include the actions of uniformed military personal as terrorism, and its inclusion would not be representative of anything but fringe sources, and would only serve your renewed POV push and not the interests of the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.164 (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a new section showing the overwhelming academic opinion that terrorism/terrorist have no agreed-upon meaning, and that the only partial description of the terms that everyone agrees on includes state terror and terror during wartime.Haberstr (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of RS generally set it aside, as it isn't what is commonly perceived as terrorism, the place for a history of state terrorism would be the state terrorism page rather than losing the proper and useful focus of this article, certainly almost all sources on terrorism do not seek to include the already well covered topic of nazi or communist oppression and the war crimes of various nations, and to include them here would be a mistake as mentioned before where exactly would it end? every war, the regime of every dictator? otherwise you'd be entering Bias and POV. I also think your being disingenuous and misleading with your post far from the minority disputing it the majority acknowledge that there is debate over the definition but most use the commonly perceived concept, like the UN definition and the BBC article you've previously held up as examples. As for right wing bias, I think thats more your POV given your draft rewrite.Sherzo (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of RS consider 'state terrorism' one of the meanings of 'terrorism' and talk about it in any overview of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You POV tinted interpretations of clear english reminds me of the same level of obfuscation as Bill Clinton. Sherzo (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's helpful to present evidence that demonstrates your point of view. Here's some evidence: look at the history sections of any of Hoffman's or Laqueur's books and they discuss state terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You've down that for me on the next section, which clearly backs both my points Sherzo (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said below, the 'debate' is intractable. Simply imitating the way Laqueur and/or Hoffman proceed in their historical sections doesn't compute here.Haberstr (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only intractable element is your desire to push a POV and the majority of other editors desire to avoid such POV pushes. Sherzo (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your find all attempts at POV pushes on wiki, will result in very little "traction" for the pusher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.72 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RS: All say terrorism meaning disputed and no consensus, most say meaning has expanded not contracted

An answer to the contention that terrorism has a widely agreed and fairly narrow meaning (which rejects inclusion of ‘state terror’, ‘terrorism during wartime’, and so on in what is supposed to be a history of terrorism (by implication also a history of how the term has been very widely used)) was made in the brief ‘definition of terrorism’ section that I constructed and that was promptly disappeared from 'history of terrorism’. Obviously, including the wider range of (disputed) examples of terrorism has important implications for revising the 'history of terrorism' entry. Luckily, I've already made a revised, inclusive, 'history of terrorism'; just go to my homepage and click on 'history of terrorism chronologically and geographically'. That said, immediately below is the disappeared section, and afterward additional mainstream support for my position (stated in this section title), which 80.5.**/86.5.** has by implication requested.Haberstr (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In part because the word is politically and emotionally charged, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism, nor is there likely to be one in the foreseeable future, according to one leading scholar. The diversity of definitions is indicated by a 1988 United States Army study, which found over 100 definitions of the word, with 22 definitional elements. Walter Laqueur has written that “Any definition of political terrorism venturing beyond noting the systematic use of murder, injury and destruction or the threats of such acts toward achieving political ends is bound to lead to endless controversies.” . . .

Here are some additional sources that agree with the above (bold added):

Bruce Hoffman. Note how the Hoffman book’s brief ‘history of terrorism’ section makes a point of discussing the changing meaning of terror, and discusses Stalin and Hitler specifically:

Inside Terrorism: From the Iran Hostage Crisis to the World Trade Center Bombing

By Bruce Hoffman Columbia University Press, 1999 ISBN 0231114699 p.23: By the 1930s, the meaning of 'terrorism' had changed again. It was now used less to refer to revolutionary movements and violence directed against governments and their leaders, and more to describe the practices of mass repression employed by totalitarian states and their dictatorial leaders against their own citizens. Thus the term regained its former connotations of abuse of power by governments, and was applied specifically to the authoritarian regimes that had come to power in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. . . . p.25: Following the Second World War, in another swing of the pendulum of meaning, 'terrorism' regained the revolutionary connotations with which is it most commonly associated today. . . . p.37-38:

The cumulative effect of this proclivity towards equivocation is that today there is no one widely accepted or agreed definition for terrorism. Different departments or agencies of even the same government will [p. 38 ] themselves often have very different definitions for terrorism.[3]

Walter Laqueur:

The New Terrorism

Walter Laqueur 1999 Oxford University Press [page 5]Can terrorism be defined? And is it not possible that in certain circumstances terrorism might be a legitimate form of resistance against tyranny? More than a hundred definitions have been offered (including a few of my own) for the phenomenon, and over the past three decades, a great deal of thought has been invested in the latter question. One of the better definitions of terrorism was provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, which in 1990 described terrorism as ‘‘the unlawful use of, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce and intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.’’ But even this working definition has [page 6] not found acceptance among those studying the subject. Perhaps the only characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism always involves violence or the threat of violence. . . .

Why is it so difficult to find a generally accepted definition? Nietzsche provided part of the clue when he wrote that only things which have no history can be defined; terrorism, needless to say, has had a very long history. Furthermore, there has not been a single form of terrorism, but many, often with few traits in common. What was true of one variety was not necessarily true of another. Today there are more varieties than existed thirty years ago, and many are so different from those of the past and from each other that the term terrorism no longer fits some of them. In the future, new terms will probably be found for the new varieties of terrorism.

[A] definition [of terrorism] does not exist nor will it be found in the foreseeable future.

Any definition of political terrorism venturing beyond noting the systematic use of murder, injury and destruction or the threats of such acts toward achieving political ends is bound to lead to endless controversies.

The Age of Terrorism

by Walter Laqueur

[page 11] Terrorism at the time referred to the period in the French Revolution broadly speaking between March 1793 and July 1794 and it was more or less a synonym for 'reign of terror'.

Subsequently it acquired a wider meaning in the dictionaries as a system of terror.

A terrorist was anyone who attempted to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation. Even more recently, the term 'terrorism' (like 'guerrilla') has been used in so many different senses as to become almost meaningless, covering almost any, and not necessarily political, act of violence.

Amy Zalman:

Definitions of Terrorism

From Amy Zalman, Ph.D., for About.com The Many Definitions of Terrorism There is no official definition of terrorism agreed on throughout the world, and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.

We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). . . . [4]

The Columbia Encyclopedia

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances. The term dates from the Reign of Terror (1793–94) in the French Revolution but has taken on additional meaning in the 20th cent. [5]

Igor Primoratz in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't restrict terrorism to non-state groups. For example:

The terrorism employed by both sides in the Russian Revolution and Civil War was in important respects a throwback to that of the Jacobins. The government set up in Russia by the victorious Bolsheviks was totalitarian. So was the Nazi rule in Germany. [6]

Brett Bowden:

Given the various typologies of terror catalogued herein and the fact that there is no stereotypical terrorist or purveyor of terror — think Jacobins, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, bin Laden, Abu Nidal, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal), Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof Gang, IRA, ETA, Stern Gang, Timothy McVeigh, Aum Shinrikyo, Theodore Kaczynski (Unabomber), and so on — is it at all surprising that there is no theory of terror? Furthermore, despite the proliferation of studies dedicated to terrorism, or perhaps because of it, is it any wonder that 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are notoriously difficult to define to any degree of general agreement or satisfaction, or that there is still a coherent theory to be developed which includes them? . . . when it comes to understanding matters such as terror and terrorism I am not sure that an all-encompassing grand theory is particularly helpful; it may even serve more to blinker than enhance.

Adam Roberts:

The Changing Faces of Terrorism

By Professor Adam Roberts

Terror during the French Revolution © The word 'terrorism' entered into European languages in the wake of the French revolution of 1789. In the early revolutionary years, it was largely by violence that governments in Paris tried to impose their radical new order on a reluctant citizenry. As a result, the first meaning of the word 'terrorism', as recorded by the Académie Française in 1798, was 'system or rule of terror'. This serves as a healthy reminder that terror is often at its bloodiest when used by dictatorial governments against their own citizens. [7]

Moral philosopher Edmund Santurri defines terrorism broadly and applies it to state and non-state conduct:

Terrorism, which I define here as the use of violence or the threat of violence against noncombatant or civilian populations for some political purpose--terrorism in this sense--is morally wrong no matter how just the cause of the terrorist against the offending group. [8]

Here is a summary of a book by Omar Malik, published by the Brookings Institute. The original would be much better, but the point is very clear:

Enough of the Definition of Terrorism

Omar Malik, Royal Institute Of International Affairs Chatham House 2001 c. 88pp. Ordering Information Paper Text 1-86203-127-4, 14.95

In 1977 Walter Laqueur predicted accurately that 'the disputes about a detailed, comprehensive definition of terrorism will continue for a long time, they will not result in a consensus and they will make no notable contribution towards the understanding of terrorism.' Attempts to incorporate all the many manifestations of terrorism within a single definition were doomed from the start. The term terrorism has been applied across the whole spectrum of political violence, and over the centuries of history. It has been applied to times of war and of peace; to the actions of states, groups and individuals; to actions against liberal states and to actions against repressive states and dictatorships. To treat terrorism as a general concept separates the action from its context, and consequently from its intention and its justification; it therefore divorces it from its meaning. This is a bad start to any definition, given that its purpose is to illuminate the meaning. Almost a quarter of a century after Laqueur's prophetic words, Omar Malik's paper charts a route out of the definitional log-jam. It provides the important first steps both to understanding terrorism and to formulating a proper response.[9]

Alejandro J. Beutel:

“Breach of Law, Breach of Security: A Muslim

American Analysis of US Counterterrorism Policies” By: Alejandro J. Beutel Ultimately trying to build a universal consensus for an objective definition of terrorism is impossible. The fundamental problem with defining the term is that it is extremely subjective, shaped by ideology, politics and power. This is why definitions of the term continue to change.

Program Assistant, Minaret of Freedom Institute, Bethesda, MD

www.minaret.org

Carl Boggs:

Logos 3.1 – Winter 2004 A balanced assessment will reveal the emergence of many terrorisms, indeed several rival definitions of what now seems endemic to a Hobbesian universe filled with chaos and violence. There is no general consensus or single theory—a point convincingly argued by Walter Lacqueur in perhaps the first sober historical exploration of terrorism to date. If terrorism, international and local, state and substate, right and leftwing, is best understood as the violent pursuit of religious, national, or political aims . . .

Parag Khanna has a revealing perspective, since he states very openly that there is a U.S. "preferred definition” that is important to defend and advance. This should tell us here at Wikipedia that we should remain objective and worldwide in our perspective, and not allow a narrow definition the U.S. government campaigns to be “the” definition here, when the strong majority of (almost all?) respected sources agree that that narrow sense of the word is one of several or many competing definitions and that there is no consensus:

Terrorism As War

By Parag Khanna October & November 2003 1 Policy Review But for all his sagacious commentary, Laqueur has for almost three decades remained reluctant to confront the issue of defining terrorism, cautioning that contention over a definition can hinder the proper study of political violence and that terrorists, as if by definition, aim to violate international norms. But as terrorism shifts from a “weapon of the weak” to an excuse for the powerful, the strategic error of allowing America’s preferred definition to be corrupted must be confronted. We have already entered a phase where self-satisfying definitions are useless, particularly as Islamic scholars have recently defined terrorism in such a way as to include American actions: “All acts of aggression committed by individuals, groups or states against human beings, including attacks on their religion, life, intellect or property.”

The lowering of the bar on defining terrorism opens a Pandora’s box of rhetorical combat and normative chaos — precisely the opposite of the consensus America needs to gain international legitimacy for its actions as the war on terrorism continues in the years ahead.

(The point is amply made already, and the following writers may be considered vaguely ‘leftist’, so you don’t have to go past this point if you don’t want to. But I think it’s important to recognize the vast number of writers on the left who commonly use the term in a broader sense than ‘U.S. interests’ would prefer.)

Mark Selden, Binghampton University Professor of Sociology, has no problem using the term "state terrorism":

What was new was both the scale of killing made possible by the new technologies and the routinization of mass killing or state terrorism. [10]

The title of the following is enough:

Published on Monday, April 1, 2002 by Tikkun Magazine

‘’’Israel's State Terrorism’’’ by Lev Grinberg

Dr. Lev Grinberg is a political sociologist, and Director of the Humphrey Institute for Social Research at Ben Gurion University[11]

India’s Ashis Nandy:

. . . the killers who struck at New York on 9/11 and the regimes that claim absolute moral superiority over them share some common values. Both believe that when it comes to Satanic others, all terror is justified as long as it is counter-terror and interpreted as retributive justice. Both look like belated products of the twentieth century, which in retrospect looks like a century of terrorism and its natural accompaniment, collateral damage. Guernica, Hamburg, Dresden, Nanking, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are all formidable names in the history of terror and counter-terror, used systematically as political and strategic weapons. Ashis Nandy, renowned political psychologist and social theorist, is a leading figure in postcolonial studies and arguably India’s best known intellectual voice of dissent. He is Director of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. His recent awards include the Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize[12]

Glenn Greenwald:

One might ordinarily find it surprising that our elite opinion-makers are so openly and explicitly advocating war crimes and terrorism ("inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large" and "'educate' Hamas by inflicting heavy pain on the Gaza population").[13]

Richard W. Leeman:

The Rhetoric of Terrorism and Counterterrorism

by Richard W. Leeman, Greenwood Press, 1991 (excerpts) (in 'The Rhetoric of Terrorism', by Paul Wolf, 19 December 2003)

The application of the [Reagan administration] definition [of terrorism], however, was at several times capricious. Why, for example, was the CIA’s assassination manual not terroristic? The manual clearly targeted civilian leaders, and not military forces. Why was the truck bombing of the Marine barracks an act of terrorism? Were not the Marines "military forces" sent in support of a government? In what way did that act not fit the definition of "freedom fighter"? Why was South Africa not condemned as terroristic? More than once the Reagan administration was caught in this rhetorical contradiction, such that by their own use of discourse one man’s terrorist did indeed appear to be another man’s freedom fighter.

Haberstr (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a single one of those sources calls acts of terror terrorism as i far as i can see. As for definition there is an article for that in depth issue and directing people to it is far better than so poor man's version inserted into this article to back a particular POV Sherzo (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they all do, in one way or another.Haberstr (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No they really don't, talking about the debate isn't the same as supporting a side. Sherzo (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Like most scholars they don't think this issue is a debate. It's simple recognition of reality: they recognize that terrorism has multiple meanings and that some have been dominant at different periods over the last 220 years. The debate part, which I think is your focus, is that some of the scholars regret or are irritated about the reality of multiple definitions and would like to change things. That is debatable, but the fact that terrorism/terrorist has multiple meanings isn't, according to all (pretty much all the ones I can find) the leading scholars. Language meanings is a postivist (i.e., recognition of reality) game, not a 'should be' game.Haberstr (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read what you've posted? they recognise that there is debate over meaning? there not recognising "state terrorism" as the same thing as terrorism, try reading what you post!

Here's Laqueur's minimal definition of terrorist/terrorism: "the systematic use of murder, injury and destruction or the threats of such acts toward achieving political ends.” State terror, terror by militaries of states during wartime, and non-state group terror all fit within that minimal definition. Unless you reject Laqueur and his 'bad' definition, you have to accept that that definition includes state terror and terror by militaries of states during wartime.

How do they fit that definition? war isn't an extension of politics its an extension of diplomacy, so an end in international relations isnt political.

The Columbia Encyclopedia definition: "the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances." State terror, terror by militaries of states during wartime, and non-state group terror all fit within that minimal definition. Unless you reject the Columbia Encyclopedia and its 'bad' definition, you have to accept that that definition includes state terror and terror by militaries of states during wartime.Haberstr (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No they really don't but its not job to fit in whatever you feel is with the definition, remember the debate on UN definition until the full text was posted and you abandoned it? You need reliable academic sources that call it terrorism like what al quaeda or the IRA commit not simple terror or you feel this war crime or that crime against humanity fits the definition you've chosen.

Please stop telling falsehoods about the 'debate' we've had. As I said to no responsive response at the time, state terror and terror by state militaries during wartime fit the full text of the 'UN definition' you're referring to.Haberstr (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the only person perpetuating falsehoods is you, So lets quote it AGAIN!

91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. See there where it says set aside the debate on so called "state terrorism" that the where you argument falls down, and shows the only one "telling falsehoods" is you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.41.197 (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

State Terror and war crimes, clearly don't fit the UN definition Sherzo (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What does "set aside" mean in your dictionary? Now, of course, you'll see my point. And here's Annan's definition that is inclusive of all terrorist acts, including those by states and their militaries: "any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." Nonetheless, even though Annan's definition includes all terrorism as I understand the term, I believe your very small minority position (are there major scholars who say "state terrorism is not terrorism?" (so far I can't find any)) should be amply represented in any history of terrorism we would (in theory) create.Haberstr (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see your point, i do wonder what you think set aside means though? The position stated above clearly excludes the events you're are pushing for, similarly you've failed to provide any source that claims state repression is terrorism, And the vast majority of scholars when discussing terrorism do not include them, No mainstream academic text on terrorism covers them, certainly only a small number of mainly fringe opinions would back your POV, that it is terrorism rather than war crimes or crimes against humanity, which is where such events are already covered on this encyclopedia. Sherzo (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're reacting in good faith; surely you and I both know that "set aside" in the above context means "not deal with at the present time; postpone dealing with until an unspecified later time." The above 'response' is an excellent example of why this talk page discussion has become a waste of time, pointless and intractable. In addition to disagreeing with the way Hoffman or Laqueur write their histories of terrorism, you're also apparently determined to disagree even on glaringly obvious dictionary meanings; all that matters is what helps your narrow-minded, anti-encyclopedic ideological project.Haberstr (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only person who is acting in bad faith is you, as your posts here have shown, take for example you above statement the "Glaringly obvious dictionary meanings, yet your previous posts have been to argue that there is no one definition or meaning, I think you should take a look at your own posts and edits before accusing others, since the only one acting against the best interest of this article and encyclopedia is you with POV agenda. Sherzo (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again you refuse to concede the obvious point, but instead start something new; anything to get away from what the word "set aside" meant for Annan. Apparently now you want to pretend that I said all words including terrorism can have only one meaning? Anyway, it's hopeless here, the right wing has won. And, really, if you really believe there is only one narrow, Bush State Department, definition of terrorism, that's your right and it is one conceivable position. You have a perfect right to say Hoffman, Laqueur, Annan, and all the dictionaries have it wrong and there's only one meaning. And you have a right, obviously, to impose that vision on the 'history of terrorism' entry on wikipedia.Haberstr (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would i concede the point when you are clearly in error, First it wasn't Annan it was UN report, as for set aside it clearly means within the context something they felt shouldn't be included in their attempted definition. I find you sudden claims of right bias somewhat petulant, its not a matter of the left losing or the right winning its a matter of presenting a neutral point of view something you are clearly unwilling to acceptSherzo (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Set aside means not to include, even a child knows that, if it weren't for your POV blinkers you would to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.174 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The on-line dictionaries say the number 1 meaning is "to separate and reserve for a special purpose". From the context it's obvious Annan intended to mean the most common (i.e., "1." in the dictionary) meaning:

set aside[14]

1. To separate and reserve for a special purpose.

2. To discard or reject.Haberstr (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

it is obviously the latter not the former, given that the former is the more common usage in british english, and Mr Annan is from Ghana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.39 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, we have consensus. You agree with me that Annan was 'separating off' the state terror issue rather than rejecting or discarding it. And so Annan is on the side of the vast majority of international RS that recognizes that the meaning of terrorism is not determined, and whether state terrorism is terrorism is not determined.Haberstr (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that my mistake mixed them up

Haberstr i think you have perhaps missed the fact they refers to it as "So called" which would indicate they don't believe that it even qualifies but are simple recognising that a few people use the term. Sherzo (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All definitions of terrorism in all its variations (including 'state terrorism') are properly and correctly "so-called" since there is no agreed meaning for the word terrorism. It is not a controversial matter: there is no agreed definition of terrorism, there is no agreed definition of state terrorism, and Annan and all other sentient beings not having an axe to grind agree to that. In that context, anyone who is 'sure' that state terorism is not terrorism is way outside the mainstream.Haberstr (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest re-naming current 'history of terrorism' as 'history of non-state terrorism'

or history of terrorism by non-state groups. And then I'll put up (with some modifications and additions (it is not finished yet)) as a new article the alternative 'history of terrorism' I have developed (click on it on my user page), and call it 'history of terror and terrorism.' This will avoid the obviously intractable problems we're experiencing on this talk page, will get us back to making productive improvements to history(ies) of 'terrorisms/terror', and will ultiimately offer more rather than less historical information and perspective to readers. I still think -- even if this 'history of terrorism' changes names into the less contentious "history of terror by non-state groups" -- that this entry needs a lot of work in order to reduce its Wikipedia-violating POV. But at least those who want this history to abide by the conservative/neoconservative preferred definition (i.e., terrorism only involves non-state groups) as the only 'real' meaning of terrorism will be able to relax.Haberstr (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not terror its terrorism you should learn the difference, the article title is fine, As for Wiki violating POV the only article i've seen with that is your poor attempt, i do like when you get accused of pushing a left wing POV you start accusing everyone else of pushing a right wing one, its so childish that its funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.41.197 (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1) Stop the personal attacks, focus on the content, not the editor. 2) Sign your posts. --Cerejota (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a need, as there nothing particularly contentious about the name. As I suggested before a link to the war crimes etc articles could be put into the opening sentence. you could also see about adding a history to the state terrorism page, though that is likely to be highly disputed, since terror does not equal terrorism. I find it dubious now that you are "suddenly" accusing the article of a right POV, having never previously raised it or placed a tag to that effect, especially since i commented on the left wing bias of your draft, i feel these accusations are in somewhat bad faith. Sherzo (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the name is fine. The article, however, does need to address both state terror, and state-sponsored terrorism.--Cerejota (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

State terror isnt the same thing as terrorism, Spanish inquisition may have used terror as tool but that does not equate to them being terrorists and commonly percieved or their addition here adding anything useful to the reader, and we certainly dont want the useful and relevant information to be lost beneath the munuscia just to satisfy the POV agenda of one editor. State sponsor terrorism on the other hand is already included but if there notable examples you feel are missing from this article then lets discuss them. Sherzo (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All mainstream history of terrorism accounts (see Laqueur & Hoffman) include state terror, state-sponsored terrorism, and terrorist attacks carried out by militaries during wartime. Of course they also provide a running account of how particular definitions have been the main definition at varying times during the history of the word. This 'history of terrorism' has decided not to do any of that, and agrees with the Bush-era U.S. State Department definition, under which only non-state groups can carry out or have ever carried out terrorism. Therefore, we should rename this entry 'history of terrorism by non-state groups'.Haberstr (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

They really don't as i've read several histories of terrorism and not a single one has a chapter or anything else on Nazi crimes against humanity or terror bombing, so you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise for the sake of your own POV. The article is written from the perspective of today's reader not one who lived in 18th century france when the word did have a different connotation, which is mentioned briefly in this article, however the etymology of the word resides on the definition page, which deals with the complex issues of the changing nature of the word. Since the article includes by state run and state sponsored groups your suggested title would not only be unecessary but also misleading. Sherzo (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

and if the article was changed to include your POV pushes it would have to be changed to Haberstr POV, History of Terrorism. as many editors have said before Terror doesn't equate to terrorism, if it did, anything that induced fear would be included, from Sabertooth tigers, to current recession! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.174 (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Writing a history of terrorism as would Laqueur or Hoffman is POV to you.Haberstr (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually one of the complaints of Cerejota was that this article was too influenced by such writers, so the question has to be asked have you ever bothered any of these authors? because you don't seem to have by your posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.39 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you? Because I have, and this is highly original reading. Both of the sources uses as a framework for this article extensively speak of state-sponsored terrorism, proxy wars, use of guerrilla tactics by States, and the development of asynchronous warfare, including stay-behind organizations and assassination squads. It is true they do not mention "state terror" in the sense of the Nazis, but that is different topic indeed: Nazis were implementing state policy for reasons of power, not to gain political compliance to demands.

To clarify, my problem is not one of influence, but one of undue weight: viewpoints of two authors dominate the discourse in an article that is too important to ignore this. If you want, you can count as "influence" the partisan political branding of organizations as terrorists, many of which (such as the national liberation organizations) not viewed as terrorist by large chunks of the human race. --Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First no source is used as a framework for this article. I have read the sources, and i agree with you, thats why such topics are covered, if you feel there are examples or salient information missing or indeed of expansion, then add them or raise them here and I'm happy to try and research them!

Cerejota, other than Haberstr no one is disagreeing with that assessment to my knowledge it is certainly my reading of most mainstream sources, I also think the political aspect is important to remember else the mafia etc would have to be included.Sherzo (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are about 200 sources its misleading to claim that two authors only used more extensively recently by Mcen in his addition dominant the article, it would be impossible in fact given the sheer number of sources this article has. However if you want to rewrite those sections using new sources feel free, I don't see a need as i think Mcen did fine work and the section adhere to NPOV and provide useful information.

Cerejota what viewpoints do you feel are missing from the opening sections? Sherzo (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is extremely disingenuous: I did an analysis of sources and proved that 25% of the sources are from two authors, the structure used is from one source, and the vast majority of the sources used respond a single general viewpoint ont he topic. Its about quality, not quantity. Please do not ignore previous contributions.--Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr's sudden allegation of right wing bias.

Having just been reviewing the article, i really think this lastest allegation is in unfounded and a bad faith response based on another editor comment that Haberstr draft has a left wing bias. If you read the article the only bias i see is a possible slight left wing one, the groups a frequently shown in a good light, with phrase often saying group X want to free their country from Y, which obviously shows a slight bias in favour of the group by the positive language used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.39 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is 86.25 . . .'s claimed "reign of terror contraction was consensus" on this talk page?

Once again, 86.25. . . . makes a false statement on his/her edit line which falsely accuses another editor, me, of lying on his edit line. On the substantive matter, all the RS sources give great prominence to the Reign of Terror in their histories of terror, and far far greater, for example, than they give to 'John Brown', 'The Irish Brotherhood', 'The Gunpowder Plot', which all have their own sections in this 'history'. The Reign of Terror is where the terms terrorism, terrorist, and terror first were used in their original modern meanings. That this involved 'state terror' does not mean that history should be hidden and not given its section.Haberstr (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you even understand what the word modern means? because i think you're confusing it with comtemporary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.108 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is continuing to provide misleading edit summaries, claiming false consensus, and in general being disruptive.--Cerejota (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

the only people being disruptive are editors who are dedicated to pushing a POV and those who refuse to justify their tags, even in edit summaries let alone on talk pages!

I believe we discussed it some weeks ago it should be in the archive. Also i think its disingenuous of you to claim "all the RS sources give great prominence to the Reign of Terror in their histories of terror" as this is quite simple false as far as histories of terrorism is concerned i've never seen any give it more than page and certainly not a chapter which i have seen on Irish terrorism, I also think it betrays the POV you're trying to push as the sentences covering it relate the facts about the origin of the term succinctlySherzo (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we disagree about something, fine. I believe it's (obviously) true and you disagree. Where the charge that I'm "disingenuous" comes from, I don't know. Will you at least agree that the Reign of Terror is given far more weight than, say, The Gunpowder Plot in the typical history of terrorism?Haberstr (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a matter of belief its a matter of fact, there isn't a great deal of coverage of the RoT in mainstream terrorism texts etc and the gunpowder plot does indeed receive far more.Sherzo (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. For example, compare the discussion of the Reign of Terror and the non-existence of the Gunpowder Plot in Laqueur's history of terrorism at [15] or in Blin et al's history of terrorism at [16]. There's also the short history sections in 'terrorism' books, like Hoffman's 'Inside Terrorism' (at [17]) which like the previous discusses the Reign of Terror and doesn't discuss the Gunpowder Plot. These are some of the heaviest scholars in the field, I don't understand why you resist their mainstream point of view.Haberstr (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag Wars: Attack of the Clones

Can we stop the sillyness around the tags?

The resons for their placement have neither been addressed, nor discussed beyond personal attacks. Its not the end of the world. While I won't repeat myself for the benefit of those who refuse to hear it, a quick summary is in order:

1. The factual accuracy is questioned: there is a lack of wide verification on the viewpoints expressed. Many of the things argued as par tof a history of terrorism are contentious.
2. It represents, by sourcing and argument, a distinctly Anglo-American/European point of view, with no representation at all for global viewpoints on the subject.
3. There is very little context - groups organizations and historical situations are declared as being part of the history of terrorism based on the debatable opinions of a few individuals. This is moralizing to our readers. The lest we owe to them is a complete contextualization of claims and circumstances.
4. There sources still respond to an overly narrow opinion spectrum, and hence while represented by more than one individual, are the equivalent of a single opinion.
5. Lastly, I am asking the community to perform neutrality chacks, which might take time, and hence the tag should remain until aither neutrality issues are resolved to my satisfaction (because I placed the tag) or there futher community involvement and consensus develops with more voices.

I am adding the "rewrite" tag, which has been removed, because this article is simply badly written. While not perfect as an article, and sufferign form other issues, the structural and coverage model of Insurgency is much better: instead of an WP:COATRACK to name organizations or auses as terrorist, that article actually explains what Insurgencies in the mil-hist context are, including ample academic opinion.--Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Style, cohesion, and tone are to copy edits needed, there are no major grammar or spelling issues.--Cerejota (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag Wars: Revenge of the Vandals

Can you stop vandalising a page without justification, You have stated them so you can't repeat yourself! you avoid any question ask of you, and avoid specifics you appear to be nothing but a troll, provide specifics and we can talk, but copy edit? tag really where exactly is the bad grammar or spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.41.89 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting tags is not vandalism, and I provided specifics above. I am taking this to a noticeboard, as this is the second time you do this.--Cerejota (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is when you just copy and paste vague unjustifed tags refuse to answer any questions about them are evasive and refuse to engage in any substantive discuss about them!

as soon as you post a defence they can stay can't say fair that that, i'd particularly like to see the weasel words you claim are in the article and the grammar and spelling mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.218 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss content of the article in the above threads, all of which provide substantive commentary on the topic. --Cerejota (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Locked talkpage

why is the talk page locked? it seems incredibly bad form Sherzo (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is a place for an individual to blow off steam and explain him/herself who may be frustrated and angry after being blocked from the article page.Haberstr (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support guys.

Pictures

I've just noticed that the majority of the pictures are either of a groups leaders, or an aftermath of an attack, perhaps we should look to diversify this a bit Sherzo (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We could look through the main articles on alot of the topics see if there are alternate images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.145 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is more notable event in terrorism history, 'Reign of Terror' or 'Gunpowder Plot'?

Forgive me for asking the uninvolved such a silly question, but one of the aggressive editors here thinks the Gunpowder Plot is a "far more notable" event than the Reign of Terror. Few mainstream histories of terror give any weight or space at all to the Gunpowder Plot, for various RS reasons, but that's not persuasive here. This is just one indication of the profoundly anti-RS anti-mainstream problems displayed by this history of selected terrorist groups posing as a history of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In a thread a short distance above I provided the following evidence (from the mountain available) for the above contention, and that aggressive editor did not respond:

You're wrong. For example, compare the discussion of the Reign of Terror and the non-existence of the Gunpowder Plot in Laqueur's history of terrorism at [18] or in Blin et al's history of terrorism at [19]. There's also the short history sections in 'terrorism' books, like Hoffman's 'Inside Terrorism' (at [20]) which like the previous discusses the Reign of Terror and doesn't discuss the Gunpowder Plot. These are some of the heaviest scholars in the field, I don't understand why you resist their mainstream point of view.Haberstr (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on this is petty, The gunpowder plot is frequently compared to and called terrorism both academical and culturally, The reign of terror wasn't removed from this article it was condensed to the salient details for this article, in line with you own proposals. Its just plain misrepresentative of you to suggest otherwise in yet an another attempt to open the door for the POV push on the nazi regime etc. please stop your actions harm this article and wikipedia as a whole

Majority of sources I've seen dealing specifically with terrorism, the majority make brief mention, and clearly differentiate it from the modern concept, so its disingenuous to claim otherwise. I checked some of the sources you used in that long cite list, for example the New york times article and they don't call it terrorism, so your sourcing is dubious, and seems to be yet another POV push on your part. Sherzo (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead attempting to change the subject, you haven't defended your statement, and your action to make this history reflect your statement, that the Gunpowder Plot was a "far more notable" event than the Reign of Terror. Otherwise, your "majority of sources I've seen" but without any links, versus Hoffman, Laqueur, and Blin. And you have the chutzpah to call such sourcing 'dubious' and _my_ efforts a POV push.Haberstr (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow you are quite the hypocrite, anyway i checked the only websource you cite and as has been said it doesnt back the claim you associate with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.194 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Up to your same old name-calling, I see; I cited three websites and you're not telling the truth about what is found there and I am.Haberstr (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)