Talk:Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A definitional view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of terrorism in the world

Plz consider the fallowing passage:

"The women chosen by the BBC on its web page [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4397615.stm) are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.

The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!

Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…

These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"

Keith Henson's thoughts

william buckland's thoughts, "terrorism is a form of warfare."

I would put it a bit differently. Terrorism and warfare are both the outcome of stressed human populations.

Also: "that is to say, politics by other means."

I think "politics" misses he evolutionary origin of war and terrorism. I commented about this recently on the virus list when someone mentioned that there was disagreement about the Wikipedia page for "terrorism" and proposed that it might be recast as a memetics issue. My comments there:

(begin quote)

I am sorry to say that memetics is not the right tool for the job. This is coming from a person whose status depends to a considerable degree on work in memetics now dating back over 20 years.

What is needed is evolutionary psychology.

Many of us overrated memes as being causal to wars and related social disruptions. They do play a role in the causal *chain* leading to war and/or terrorism but as members of interchangeable class. They are not at the origin of the chain.

The ultimate cause of "uncaused" wars and terrorism is rooted in the problems of any species that escapes its predators. Without predation, animals always over exploit their environment. This is true of chimps as well as humans. By taking to the trees to sleep and staying in groups during the day, very few chimps get eaten by leopards.

So chimp populations are limited by violence--sometimes total genocide--between groups. (Bumper sticker: Be Your Own Predator!)

For this to be stable, there has to be feedback making violence between chimp groups more likely as the population rises or the food supply falls. I do not know what it is that turns on chimpanzee genocides, though this would be an important question to ask.

Humans have an evolved behavioral switch that is activated by the anticipation of coming hard times. The link through memes is that the switch turns up the gain of circulating xenophobic memes. In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, the circulating memes synchronized a tribe's warriors to a do or die attack on a neighboring tribe.

In a situation where the tribe members would all starve without taking over a neighbor's territory, the genes of the warriors were better off *even if the warriors lost and were all killed.* The reason is that their genes were also present in the female children which were normally booty to the winning tribe. (You need to understand Hamilton's inclusive fitness for this to make sense.)

If you wonder why humans seem to have rather flexible morals, it is part and parcel of our evolutionary heritage. Morals *are* situational. If you want peace rather than wars and terrorism, all human populations need to be looking at an improving future (or at least not a bleak one).

[A question for the class to consider is why some parts of the world are much more stable than others.? As a specific case, give an EP account for why population support for the IRA faded out? Date (+-5 years) the origin of the proximate cause.]

As an analogy, removing a lug nut from a wheel with sticks and rocks would be an awful job. But it becomes a simple task with an air wrench. So it is with understanding wars and terrorism with EP instead of memetics.

Unfortunately, the understanding that emerges is extremely depressing. Because it uses the E word, it can't even be comprehended by the rising political forces in the US.

(end quote)

Bradley Thayer's recent book _Darwin and International Relations_ more or less supports this view.

If there is interest for this merging of war, terrorism and relates social disruptions, I will be happy to contribute a draft.

Keith Henson

FactFinder

"Intention" a factor? I disagree

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

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

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

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

Rudolph and Goldstein examples

I notice a little edit war going on with whether to include Rudolph and Goldstein as examples of terrorists whose intentions were to maximize casualties. The only problem I see is that terrorists generally are seen as acting on behalf of an organization. These two, as far as I understand, are mass murderers but perhaps aren't clear examples of "terrorists". What do you think? And are there any better examples to use instead of them? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I removed them because they operated as indivduals and therefore the issue of giving warning is irrelevant to them. A psychopath never issue a warning before he opens a killing spree (which is usualy done spotanoussly out of revenage, the phsycho takes a gun and just start shooting). However, organizations are more calculated and often act in the pursuit of a certain goal. Their attack are almost always planned and carried out by dedicated teams, which act in a more calculated way and are suboedinate to their group's agenda. Therefore, they have the means to issue warnings (anonymous call to the press by another team members), if they want to spare human lives and just cause panic. MathKnight 16:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's much better. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

A hallmark of contemporary far-right-wing terrorism is the encouragement and support of "lone wolves" who can deny formal involvement with any organization. The FBI thinks the phenomenon exists:

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/US/02/01/schuster.column/

Someone who doesn't think this pattern exists should bear the responsibility of proving that the FBI is wrong on this point.

If you remove Rudolph from the article, do you plan on rewriting the Eric Robert Rudolph page to defend the view that he is not a terrorist? What type of language do you plan to use on that? How about Timothy McVeigh?

Both Goldstein and Rudolph belong in. BrandonYusufToropov 16:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which groups did encouraged Goldstein and Rudolph to commit these acts? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are they part of a group? Did they operated on behalf of a group? Can you back these charges? As I stated before, individual terrorists or murderers, who acts on their own, and usually out of vandatta, don't issue warnings since they act is usually spontanous and second - they are usually get killed or caught after their first attack, so no pattern can be determined. The issue of warnings valid only for group terrorism - attacks which are mastermind by groups and so a pattern can be determined (the attackers may get killed, but the group have other attackers, willing to do similiar acts). So far you failed to address the issues. MathKnight 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the FBI would be, in your view, delusional in describing them as terrorists? BrandonYusufToropov 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the FBI mention Goldstein? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction: "Him." And the other half-dozen US lone wolves mentioned in the article. Obviously, they don't have jurisdiction over Goldstein.

The question remains -- we are writing an article on Terrorism. FBI says Rudolph is a terrorist. Are they right or wrong? Wriggle elsewhere, please. Looking for a direct answer. Thanks loads. BrandonYusufToropov 19:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, you again fail to address the issue. The question is not whether their activity consist of being terrorist, but rather they were belonged to a group or not. MathKnight 19:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm challenging the contention that one has to be a publicly declared member of a group to be a terrorist, yes, and pointing out that the FBI agrees with me on this point. Acknowledged? Or is some fact in dispute in what I just wrote? BrandonYusufToropov 19:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You again failed to address the point. I don't claim they were not terrorist, but that they acted as individuals and therefore the issue of giving warning is pretty much irrelevant for them. Please see Independent terrorist actor for more information. MathKnight 19:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CNN article I forwarded (see above) makes the point that these individuals operate quote independently unquote -- but under the tacit approval of, and with the training, support, and education of -- organized groups. (This was Goldstein's pattern as well, by the way.) The terrorists in question do this in order to pursue their bloody agenda effectively over time and, yes, that agenda definitely includes sneaking up on civilians whom they wish to kill without giving prior notice.

Question number one: Did you read the article?

Question number two: Do you think it's about terrorism?

Question number three: Where is this information included in our discussion of how terrorist groups target their victims? BrandonYusufToropov 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was Goldstein's pattern? Who approved, trained and supported him in his attack? He took a machine gun and gunned down a bunch of people. There were no bomb labs, timing devices, disguises etc. required. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know what I love about chatting with you, Jay? Those slipstream reversals. Was I talking about bomb labs? Was I talking about disguises? No. What I said was, "tacit approval," and "training, support, and education." Not specific ops. After they're cut loose, having received early indoctrination, lone wolves are on their own. (Like you didn't get that already.)

I quote:

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/goldstein_significance.html

Goldstein's refusal to give proper medical treatment to non-Jews continued after he was transferred to Kiryat Arba. In his February 27,1994 Yediot Ahronot article, Nahum Barnea wrote:

"The senior Israeli army officer in the Hebron area told me about his two encounters with Baruch Goldstein. The second time he saw him was in the company of Kach goons who were abusing President Ezer Weisman during his visit to Kiryat Arba."

I quote:

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=19

"Kach (Hebrew for 'Only Thus') was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means 'Kahane Lives,' (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. [my emphasis--BYT] This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach.

You've been a busy bee lately, Jay. One of the things you've been busy doing is misdirecting conversations like these. Back to camp, compass in hand:

Question number one: Did you read the CNN article (above) about lone wolves?

(Replay: These individuals operate quote independently unquote -- but under the tacit approval of, and with the training, support, and education of -- organized groups. This was Goldstein's pattern as well, by the way. The terrorists in question do this in order to pursue their bloody agenda effectively over time and, yes, that agenda definitely includes sneaking up on civilians whom they wish to kill without giving prior notice.)

Question number two: Do you think the CNN article I posted is about terrorism?

Question number three: Where is this information included in our discussion of how terrorist groups target their victims? BrandonYusufToropov 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC

Actually, my questions were directly to the point. The alleged phenomenon of "lone wolf" actors who are indoctrinated and then stealthily sent on their way to act on their own, so that the indoctrinating organization can deny responsibility, is fundamentally different from the typical terrorist phenomenon, wherein an organized group uses sophisticated means to train and equip its operatives, and then claims responsibility for the resultant acts in order to increase its prestige, power, following, and funding. Your attempts to conflate these two fundamentally different phenomena were simply incorrect; now that the lone wolf phenomenon has been placed in its own logical and coherent section, the article once again makes sense. So, in answer to your questions, 1) Yes. 2) It's an allegation about a different kind of terrorism, and 3) Where it belongs, in its own section discussing the alleged phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress. Clearly, we allegedly understand, as perhaps we have allegedly understood for some time, what a "lone wolf" (allegedly) is. So:

Your earnest, seemingly befuddled demand for explanations of precisely how Kach (or Allegedly, Inc., if you prefer) had overseen and supported Goldstein in the details of his attack ... that was a typo, right? Otherwise someone might wonder if you were deliberately throwing the conversation off track. (Same deal with your puzzlement over my error in describing the FBI as identifying Goldestein. An innocent question, or a one-line attempt to avoid actual discussion of Goldstein's actions? Or, again, a typo?)

There is quite a difference between an allegation of such a connection, and a proudly touted action. And the questions were precisely on-track; you were trying to confuse an alleged secret conspiracy between Kach and Goldstein with the typical terrorist organization which arms, trains, sends off, then proudly claims responsibility for it's members actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your insistence that "neither Goldstein or Rudolph are relevant" -- you really meant by this that they deserved a section of their own, yes? Just want to be clear. I missed some elusive shade of meaning in the header, right?

They certainly weren't relevant where they were. As I said above, you were conflating two distinct phenomena. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or have your edits, deletions, and additions here consistently followed a pro-Israel, pro-white-guy pattern? Did you write, just for the sake of balance, a long section on McVeigh or the KKK that somehow got lost in the shuffle? And what, if you don't mind my asking, would make you so very eager to exclude such loathsome characters from an article like this?

Is it my imagination that you are focussing on me, rather than article content? Is it my imagination that you are using sarcasm, innuendo, and mockery as not-so-subtle attempts to put me down? Is it my imagination that your questions have already been answered, but you continue to ask them again anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's clarify: Suicide bombers who slavishly carry out a hatemongering religious agenda, and who imagine they are thereby winning entry to Paradise ... those are bad guys. Racist machine gunners with a hatemongering religious agenda, who imagine they are fulfilling God's will by murdering civilians .... those are bad guys, too, right?

They're both bad-guys, though Goldstein didn't imagine he was fulfilling God's will. All mass murderers are bad guys, but not all mass murderers are terrorists. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new section too. There we agree. Do note, however, that both ("alleged") "lone wolves" and (curiously, in your world, not "alleged") proponents of the "typical terrorist phenomenon," as you put it, target civilians without warning. BrandonYusufToropov 19:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists who proudly claim responsibility for blowing people up are not alleged, but admitted. And regarding targetting civilians without warning, so do mass murderers and serial rapists, but they're not terrorists. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell whether you're referring to Goldstein in the reference above to mass murderers, but earlier you claim (through a spirit medium?) to have known what was on his mind before he killed civilians. He was clearly a religious extremist, and the idea that he "didn't imagine he was fulfilling God's will" seems to me difficult to defend. But go ahead.

This whole "alleged' thing, which I do indeed find irritating in the present context, appears to be designed as a fig-leaf for the benefit of Goldstein, the deletion of whose terrorist crimes sparked this little tete a tete. If you mean "alleged" in another way, please do clarify. But for the record, lest there be any doubt that his act was a political one with political consequences:

Tiran Pollak, one of the Kahane Khai leaders, wanted by the police, granted me an interview near the coffin. "Goldstein was not only righteous and holy," he told me, "but also a martyr. Since he is a martyr, his corpse will be buried without being washed, not in a shroud but in his clothes. The honorable Dr. Goldstein has always refused to provide medical help to Arabs. Even during the War for the Galilee he refused to treat any Arab. The Chief Rabbi of the Israeli army, General Gad Navon, at that time contacted Meir Kahane, asking him to persuade Baruch Goldstein of blessed memory to treat the Arabs. But Kahane refused, on the ground that this would be against the Jewish religion."--Ilana Baum

After Goldstein's coffin was brought to Kiryat Arba under heavy military guard, a second run of eulogies was delivered in the hall of the Hesder Yeshiva Nir, i.e., in a military institution. Goldstein was eulogized there by a whole motley of religious settlers, but also by the above mentioned rabbi Dov Lior. Lior said: "Goldstein was full of love for fellow human beings. He dedicated himself to helping others." It should be explained here that terms like "human being" refer in Jewish Orthodox Law [Halacha] only to Jewish human beings. -- Israel Shahak

"The holy martyr Baruch Goldstein is from now on our intercessor in the Heavens. Goldstein didn't act as an individual: He heard the cry of the Land [of Israel] which is being stolen from us day after day by the Muslims. He acted in order to relieve that cry of the Land!" -- Rabbi Israel Ariel

So yeah. He was "allegedly' mixed up with the Kahane folks. There is "allegedly" air to breathe, and gravity "allegedly' pulls objects toward the center of the earth.

Now, I acknowledge that a less bullheaded editor than I would have acceded to your various underhanded attempts to keep Goldstein out of this article. But I do want to be very clear that it is your edits, deletions, and additions I take exception to, not you as a person. Could be I'm off base here, and I've missed some more even-handed aspect of your work. Prove me wrong. BrandonYusufToropov 12:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I respect your work Brandon, and I'd like to work co-operatively with you on this and other articles. However, not only have you misrepresented completely what I have been saying, your tone and words here have been such an outrageous violation of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith policies (particularly the "various underhanded attempts" phrase) that I refuse to respond to your inquisition any further unless some sort of apology is forthcoming. I try to maintain a pretty even keel here, but it is difficult enough in the face of daily abuse from psychotic sockpuppets, I don't need more from you. As a final statement, I will simply direct you to this reversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Goldstein&diff=11565388&oldid=11564347) and this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Goldstein&diff=11654486&oldid=11654358) I made last month at Baruch Goldstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's do assume good faith, and maybe talk to each other before deleting substantive material, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brandon, after following his argument here, that there is a phenomenon of the "lone wolf" terrorist that should be addressed in the article. They would be differentiated from mass murderers because they act out of an extreme political agenda which includes the use of terrorist acts to further their cause. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This topic deserve its own section (obviously, given the contention here). But the "warnings" section is obviously not that section.

I also suspect this issue would have been better discussed and resolved here before the parties involved engaged in their revert war... it's not like it'll kill anyone to have the page not "their way" for a couple of days. :) -- Wisq 03:59, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

That was actually my argument! Moreover, I combined Brendon's additions in their proper place: Independent terrorist actor. It will be better if the issue will be elaborated there, including the thesis of the "lone wolf". MathKnight 07:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International_conventions_on_terrorism

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

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

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

"Terrorism is a controversial term with multiple definitions."

-- I would go further and use, instead,

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

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

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

Kudos on the article

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

Sociology and evolution paragraph

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

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

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

Uh, what? I sure didn't write that! :) Relevant edit diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism&diff=11251499&oldid=11224225) aside, you can tell because I use British spellings -- dehumanises, behaviour. Those show up as red in my auto spell checker, too. -- Wisq 02:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Lone Wolf attackers

15 words are all that is required to describe Eric Robert Rudolph and his actions, and only 4 are required to describe Timothy McVeigh and his actions, yet apparently a full 70 words are required to describe Baruch Goldstein and his actions, including the date, Muslim festivals, geopolitical situation, the building in which he made his attack, numbers killed and wounded, what the killed were doing at the time, events following his death, his former associations, and detailed descriptions of those groups he was formerly associated with. None of this information is apparently necessary to describe the other "lone wolf" attackers listed in this article. What exactly is it about Goldstein that requires us to use 17 times as many words to describe him and his actions as we need to describe McVeigh? Is it because Goldstein's attack had more overall casualties? No, his attack had the fewest overall casualties, around 130. Is it because he killed the most people? No, McVeigh killed almost 5 times as many people. What is inherently different about Goldstein that he cannot be described in the same paragraph as the other two men, and in a similar manner? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, we had a big dust-up over this before, and the only thing that changed since our identification of a DMZ on this particular passage was that some new editor, unfamiliar with previous conflicts, perhaps, added in the Ramadan details (inelegantly) and I did a style edit to smooth it out. I have no emotional investment in including the Ramadan details, nor did I add them, but I do have a problem with poorly written copy, so that's why I fixed it. If you don't like the additions, let's take them out.

Don't let's launch World War Six on this. Let's just go back to the (presumably non-adrenaline-provoking) version that stood for several months without incident, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 18:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written in stone, that's the beauty of it. The descriptions of the three are obviously not balanced; do you have any answers for the question above besides "it looked this way for two months"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I tried. BrandonYusufToropov 21:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tried what? To provide some rationale for the discrepancy? I see no evidence of that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BYT's version. It stayed for 2 months without anyone finding anything wrong with it but now some editors want to obfuscate the event.Yuber^(talk) 23:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've raised a comprehensive objection, but no-one seems to have a response for it, other than "no-one complained before". That hardly seems like good faith to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jayjg that it isn't particularly representative as it stands. The duration of this apportionment is rather immaterial. I have found striking errors in article versions which have been 'stable' for years. The wiki is dynamic. El_C 02:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, I fixed the problem.

Guy Montag 02:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 03:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why Goldstein is the only person whose total victims and location of acts are mentioned. I don't think they are actually relevant to this article, which is discussing the phenomenon, and not specific incidents, but if they are, why they aren't mentioned for all of these people? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems strange that the Unabomber/Theodore Kaczinski and John Allen Mohammed should be mentioned, since no collective motive other than greed and delusion has been demonstrated about their actions. Unless it can be demonstrated that Theodore acknowledged trying to sabotage, say, the federal government, or that John was in any way indoctrinated by the NOI (Nation of Islam) towards achieving self enrichment through extortion, both mentions should be removed. NPOV means that while everyone may have their biases (which no doubt can be valuable in some cases, such as noting blatant twists or omissions), all contributors must not let their biases interfere in the FACTUAL and FAITHFUL reporting of information. Unfortunately, the small changes to this section seem to be representative of an increasingly larger anti White, anti Christian, and anti Muslim bias in favor of a pro Israeli position. How else can the "Christian Identity follower" and "Nation of Islam" member labels be explained. FIrst off, the so called "Christian Identity" isn't a single group to be followed, and mentioning NOI follower would be like mentioning that Kaczinski/Unabomber was Jewish or that he was a university faculty member. They are unrelated in both the Unabomber's and the DC Sniper's case, and in either case would only serve in IMPLYING a racial smear. (See NPOV Guidelines, esp. under Implications) I have no interest in "protecting" either the NOI or the "Christian identity" as I am repulsed at the ideological baggages of both groups, but I am interested in ACCURACY and FAIRNESS at Wikipedia. Marknorth 21:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not so clear that Goldstein was a "Kahanist" (whatever that means), for that matter. As for the "independent terrorist actor" or "lone wolf" designations for these people, I haven't actually seen the information that links them all to this designation; it would be nice to see something that did. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have strong biases. From Baruch Goldstein's Wikipedia article: "The Kach movement, to which he belonged, was outlawed [by the Israeli governmet]. The victims of the shooting received financial compensation. However, he became a hero to some Israeli right-wing extremists. Members of the outlawed Kach organization glorify his mass murder (claiming that he pre-empted the mass murder of Jews by Arabs). The group claims the following: Kach claims and support for Goldstein

Goldstein supporters make a number of claims, including the following...[goes on with list]" . If it makes you feel better, change Kahanist to Rabbi Kahane's Kach movement, and get rid of "Kahanist".

The fact is, you still haven't addressed the fundamental points of my above post, though. Marknorth 22:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's been fixed. Please do not use the Talk: page for personal attacks. As for the points of your post not being addressed, if the points in my post aren't addressed, then your points are irrelevant, since these people shouldn't be included at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which personal attacks, specifically, are you talking about? BrandonYusufToropov 15:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've already fixed the problem with lone wolf sub article. Do not revert to you pov, innacurate version again. Read the discussion.

Guy Montag 02:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for long descriptions of each "lone wolf" terrorist when we already have long articles devoted to each of them. These are simply examples. The article is long already, just mention their names. -Willmcw 19:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a new one

"Editing under false pretexts"?

Like I'm really from Neptune or something?

I'm correcting and expanding the article. Examples are nice and balanced, too, as you'll note. If you think there's a POV problem, please specify what you believe it to be so we can all discuss it.

That's the beauty of wikipedia. It's always in motion. BrandonYusufToropov 01:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is rather hard to see the objection to your recent edit - or why the person who reverted it called it a "revert". - Mustafaa 01:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note, too, that the person objecting to my edit keeps referring me to the talk page, but will provide no response to my request for details about what POV issues, precisely, are troubling him. BrandonYusufToropov 09:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted back to a POV version after we spend 3 days discussing how to fix it. You've ignored all the objections cited by the posters in the one wolf sub article above. You said, that unabomber was not acceptable, but instead of erasing him, you also reverted Muhammed, and to a pov version that was originally in dispute. That's false pretexts.

You called Eric Rudolph a Christian extremist, but he is not Christian, he is a member of Christian Identity, a neo nazi group. We are here to make this NPOV, not overtly insert our prejudices.

You cited what each one did, when we have agreed by consensus that we would not cite anyone's actions and let the readers click and get the information themselves.

You poved Baruch Goldstein entry and once again, after being specifically told that this was a POV entry by most involved, reverted back. Once again, things like "racist","Zionist terrorist," are not acceptable. You've showed bad faith by reinserting a pov version into this article.

You erased both the unabomber and the NOI member, but kept Baruch Goldstein.

Most importantly, you disregarded the work of everyone here, and without any note or justification for your changes, reverted back to the version that was in dispute in the first place.

Guy Montag 21:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The story so far: Relentless double standard in this article

Here, apparently, are the ground rules:

McVeigh and Rudolph are okay to cite as examples of lone-wolf terrorists, but details about why Baruch Goldstein qualifies as a lone-wolf terrorist should be deleted because he was not trained by any group, nor was he provided with weapons or assistance.

This was the standard certain editors tried to use in first go-round. Maintaining this position requires deliberate ignorance of the dynamic of a lone-wolf terrorist, which the FBI discusses in this article (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/US/02/01/schuster.column/), and which relies on the rather coy principle of "leaderless resistance." (This fact undercuts the Unabomber claim to fall into this category, by the way, which was why I deleted him.)

You haven't actually proven anything other than original research on a settled dispute. Goldstein acted alone. Do you have evidence that he was assisted by a group? If not drop it.

Guy Montag

If he was assisted by a group in the actual crime, Guy, he wouldn't be a lone wolf terrorist. (Like you didn't know that) This is precisely the kind of faux-ignorance Jay tried to use to argue against even mentioning Baruch several months ago. (See below)BrandonYusufToropov 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet, despite my patient explanation of this dynamic on multiple occasions on this page, editors have persistently scaled back the references to Goldstein, and have implied, at various points in the discussion, that he either was not affiliated with any political movement, that there is no such thing as a "Kahanist," or that if there was such a thing as a Kahanist, Goldstein was nevertheless a lone nut who had no larger political agenda, comparable to a serial killer. At the risk of repeating myself...

"Kach (Hebrew for 'Only Thus') was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means 'Kahane Lives,' (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. [my emphasis--BYT] This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach. [my emphasis -- BYT] [2] (http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=19)

Dangerous verbal attacks. Now that's terrorism.

Guy Montag 00:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goldstein's refusal to give proper medical treatment to non-Jews continued after he was transferred to Kiryat Arba. In his February 27,1994 Yediot Ahronot article, Nahum Barnea wrote:

'Okay, there is such a thing as a Kahanist, but details about why Baruch Goldstein qualifies as a lone-wolf terrorist should be deleted because the same level of detail is not given about other lone-wolf terrorists. '

Yet when I tried to supply the same level of detail to the other examples -- entirely warranted expansions in all three cases, since the "lone wolf" phenomenon is not widely understood or reported on, and will be unfamiliar to most readers without specifics -- my edits were instantly reverted.

You supplied innacureate pov information aftet we agreed that people can just click on the articles and read the details.

Guy Montag 00:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but details about why Baruch Goldstein is a lone-wolf terrorist should be deleted because I have determined that consensus exists to excise such references.

Note too that, in the view of those editors who take it as their duty to eliminate unflattering references to Baruch Goldstein, "consensus" exists the instant someone posts a version of the article that downplays his status as a terrorist: "We have agreed by consensus," Guy pronounces.

The multiple editors who have been objecting forcefully to the concerted effort on this page to minimize the level of detail about lone-wolf terrorists in general, and Goldstein in particular, apparently don't exist.

This is an odd kind odd kind of consensus indeed. ("You disregarded the work of everyone here," Guy intones mournfully, after the work that "everyone here" did to establish the previous version, a version that had stood for two months, had been scrapped in a heartbeat. The bewildered editor may wonder what, precisely, constitutes consensus. Of course, the answer is, consensus is, by definition, that which tends to minimize the level of detail about the crimes of Baruch Goldstein.)

Okay, Goldstein apparently qualifies as a lone-wolf terrorist, but details about Goldstein should be deleted because using the words "Zionist" and "racist" are"POV" "not acceptable."

To whom, if I may ask, are they not acceptable? And what, specifically, is POV about these terms in relation to Goldstein? Are you saying he wasn't a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization? The Israeli Supreme Court disagrees, as does the text of Kach! BrandonYusufToropov 00:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you done feeling sorry for yourself? Then lets get back to the actual debate.

Guy Montag 23:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actual debate is about these questions, which for some reason you don't want to answer:

To whom are the terms "racist" and "Zionist" not "acceptable"? It's your word, you used it, I am curious about why.

Are you saying he isnt a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization?

Please be specific in your responses. They're pretty simple questions. BrandonYusufToropov 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we need examples at all?

What is the importance of listing these three terrorists here? There is already a linked article on the topic. If we can't agree then I suggest we cut them out. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting all examples from an article about a topic of this level of interest seems surrealistically misguided to me. But if you really mean to delete all the existing references to ...

Irgun

Hamas

Al-Qaida

ETA

al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades

.... and the entire section "Examples of Terrorism," go ahead and try. My guess is it will be a very weird-looking article, and will not stand for long. BrandonYusufToropov 00:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do each of those examples come with a paragraph of explanation, like the "lone wolves" do? -Willmcw 00:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Did you get the chance to read my notes above, which covers the issue of why we need specific details on these examples? BrandonYusufToropov 01:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This indeed is a problem, Will. When I re-examined all the terrorist attacks listed on this page several days ago, after an editor added to the already lengthy Goldstein descriptiong, it was immediately quite appparent that only attack that has a paragraph describing it, was in fact that of Goldstein. This was particularly striking when the description of Goldstein was compared to the other two "lone wolf" terrorists, who were mentioned extremely briefly (one had a mere 4 word description). When I rectified this issue, a revert war ensued, with one editor insisting that "no-one complained for two months, so the article shouldn't be changed" and another simply reverting because that is his common mode of editing. Eventually, in what appears to be a desperate attempt to include a lengthy description of Goldstein's acts (for which there already exists an article), lengthy descriptions of the acts of the other two "lone wolf" terrorists were included. Of course this still begs the question; why would we need have detailed descriptions of the actions of these individuals, when this is an overview of the phenomenon, not individual acts, and when the many other acts listed on the page (rightly) do not have lengthy descriptions? And the second question which arises is "exactly who has designated Goldstein as a lone wolf terrorist"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you're trying to rid the article of content. It's very interesting and informative. I understand why you want one of the terrorists to disappear but he existed, did what is claimed and cannot be expunged from the record, unfortunately. Grace Note 04:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't understand why I'm trying to "rid the article of content", then you haven't read my comment just above, or those of Willmcw or El C before that. And for someone who once complained rather vociferously about my poisoning the well thus making further discussion impossible,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=12651268) I'm astonished you would do the same thing here ("I understand why you want one of the terrorists to disappear etc."). All I can say in response is "The irony is so rich it could buy France!".[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=15009123&oldid=15008905) Anyway, before editing again please try to address the specific comment and questions raised in my previous comments, as well as those raised by Willmcw and El C. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel there needs to be a paragraph on each example. This leads to POV, as so many examples are left out. If we write that "some examples are:" then give some names without lengthy descriptions, people can always click on their names to find out more, and it doesn't look like we're saying "These guys who each have a paragraph are the only terrorists." IMO --Silversmith Hewwo 10:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on further review, I don't mind the version with more info on each, but the article Independent terrorist actor is really small, and perhaps the information should just be there. I still dont think it's really necessary here, as more info is only a click away. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have a point about the Independent terrorist actor article; however, we are in agreement (and apparently so are others) that the inclusion of a paragraph on each of these individuals fails to address the fundamental question, why single out these acts for paragraph descriptions in this article, while dozens of other incidents mentioned on this page do not recieve similar detail? Well, actually, the answer to the question about why the others don't receive this treatment is straightforward, it's because that level of detail is inappropriate for this article. The only real question is why these individuals have this inappropriate level of detail regarding them? Looking through the history of the article, the answers have to do with POV pushing, and it's not pretty. A second unanswered question is who designated these individuals as "Independent terrorist actors"? It smacks of original research to me; witness the disagreement about the Unabomber and John Allen Muhammad. I'll move any relevant information to the Independent terrorist actor article for now, and re-pose the original research question there. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that expanding on some examples here is almost necessarily POV because of the selection process, and also because of the lack of sources designating these people as lone-wolf terrorists, so that the section is in danger of consisting of original research. This is about terrorism, not individual terrorists, so the information about individuals belongs in Independent terrorist actor. I'd also say there's a problem on that page too with lack of sources, and with the title: I've never heard the expression "independent terrorist actor" outside Wikipedia, and a Google search seems to return only Wikipedia mirrors. The best thing would be to work on getting Independent terrorist actor in order, perhaps with a new title, and link from here to there but without doubling up the information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re: "this is about terrorism, not individual terrorists": are you suggesting that we eliminate any named individuals from the text of this article? BrandonYusufToropov 22:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So put in more detail about other terrorist acts. And Slim, your argument is preposterous. No one is being excluded. That would be POV. It's not "POV" to include things you and Jay don't want to see in articles and repeatedly saying so doesn't make it so. Grace Note 23:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is (a) there's no point in having Independent terrorist actor if the contents are going to be repeated in their entirety here; (b) if they're not repeated in their entirety, the question arises as to which ones to include and which not, and that's a POV battleground, easily avoided; and (c) both here and there, the editors including these lone-wolf figures need to find sources that (i) properly define what a lone-wolf terrorist is, as opposed to a criminal, and (ii) attribute that status to each of the people included. I'm not sure I would call John Allen Muhammad a lone-wolf terrorist, for example, but this is in part because I have a problem using the label "terrorist": it always seems to lead to pointless arguments about who is more evil than whom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to include more detail about other terrorist acts, thus duplicating information found elsewhere in Wikipedia? Remember, this is an online encyclopedia with active links that one can simply click on if one needs more information. Duplication across multiple articles inevitably leads to divergence of content; indeed, the many places which mention (for example) Kach and Goldstein already diverge in content. Moreover, this article is not a detailed description of terrorist acts, or even a summary list of them; we have plenty of articles for that (e.g. List of terrorist incidents). Rather, it is a discussion of the phenomenon itself, meaning, history, causes, types, responses, etc. If we don't restrict article content to immediately relevant material, then articles inevitably become overlengthy, unfocussed, and difficult to read. As well, there are serious and unanswered WP:NOR questions about assigning individuals to the "Independent terrorist actor" category, and indeed to the whole phenomenon itself, since the only sources for it appear to be Wikipedia, its mirrors, and a CNN story about an FBI report. Finally, please respond by arguing the issues, rather than making baldly insulting assertions (e.g. "your argument is ridiculous") or poisoning the well (e.g. "things you and Jay don't want to see in articles"). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if good faith would be assumed. These comments are tiresome, and if everyone were to do it, we'd have meltdown - so those of you doing it are freeloaders. Jay's right: this is an article about terrorism, not a list of terrorists or a list of incidents. More importantly, the editors reverting to the longer version have been asked to cite credible sources. It would be good if that could be done, plus some serious discussion, rather than blind reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The point of including a synopsis of details about "lone wolf" actors is to point out the fact that terrorism comes in many forms. We should add info on state sponsored terrorism too. zen master T 01:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do the extraneous details added specifically add? Particularly given their inclusion in the "see Independent terrorist actor" inclusion directly below? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the name Independent terrorist actor, why isn't it Lone wolf terrorists? That ties in with this article better, although it only comes up with 510 google hits. "Individual terrorists" comes up with about 21,000 google hits, and "Independent terrorists" with 352. So Google-wise Individual terrorists is the most popular by far. I like the "lone wolf" option though, as it explains a term as well as listing individuals. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree; that's a much better name and it has a specific definition, unlike the current title, which doesn't seem to be used by anyone other than us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia is international, I wonder if there is one example of a lone-wolf that would be most familiar. I think McVeigh is perhaps the only one in that category - and have doubts even about how notorious even he is
The article is mostly about defining terrorism, not about all examples. Examples should be given only to illustrate points of definition, not to present an exhaustive list. Which best illustrates the point? There is some doubt about McVeigh acting alone? Some doubt the Israeli shooter acted alone too, no? Rudolf only got help in the form of food, it seems - yet he is less likely to be remembered a year from now & less likely to be known internationally
--JimWae 04:31, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't have to give any real life examples on this article. Perhaps we can describe in good detail what the term "lone wolf terrorist" means, give a hypothetical, and say "for examples of lone wolf terrorists and their actions see: Lone wolf terrorists." --Silversmith Hewwo 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Examples of lone wolf terrorism are essential to any meaningful understanding of the phenomenon; they provide the appropriate level of detail for this article.

If anyone has evidence that Goldstein had logistical support in carrying out the killings, please point me towards it -- everything I have seen (including the article citation below from Summer 2001) seems to suggest he was a member of Kach who took this on independently. BrandonYusufToropov

I'm still waiting for a logical argument as to what this detail adds here, beyond bald assertions that it adds something "meaningful" or "essential" or "appropriate". Does anyone have an argument that actually addresses this? As it is, the challenge that Willmcw made three days ago at the top of this section still stands: What is the importance of listing these three terrorists here? There is already a linked article on the topic. If we can't agree then I suggest we cut them out. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One argument is that the article should detail all forms of terrorism. Are we all agreed they should be mentioned and this dispute is over how much space should be devoted? In my opinion the slightly longer version conveys the right amount of context. Though separately, I have a problem with "lone wolf" in that section because it presumes a conclusion they acted alone and has unnecessary connotations. "Solo" would increase clarity and be less POV. zen master T 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only way this "slightly longer version" would make sense would be if we devoted a similar amount of detail to the dozens of other incidents mention on this page. Certainly, this unequal treatment cannot stand. Moreover, if we did devote this amount of detail to every other attack, then the page would quickly double in size, and would become unreadable; as it is, the page is already 30K. No-one has yet addressed these two points. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, but the issue is not that it should detail all forms, but rather why it needs to have lengthy descriptions only for Goldstein's actions (or more recently only for the actions of three "lone wolf" terrorists). The specific details of the attacks do not seem to add to elucidating the phenomenon itself, as many people here have pointed out. As well, we don't provide details on other attacks, and in response to the suggestion we should, that would obviously make the article ridiculously long, and would cover material already covered in List of terrorist incidents. I'm still waiting

Another argument is that the nature of the phenomenon is unlikely to be clear from a single example, inasumuch as lone wolves are eager to be mistaken for simple sociopaths. (And often pretty good at it.)

I notice you're no longer accusing me of making up the "lone wolf" designation for Goldstein.

Since we're apparently answering each other's questions now ...

On June 8, Jay, you wrote, in response to MarkNorth:

Please do not use the Talk: page for personal attacks.

Shortly thereafter, I asked you:

Which personal attacks, specifically, are you talking about? BrandonYusufToropov 15:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never got an answer. You must have been busy. I trust you weren't trying to undermine a point someone else was making, and intimidate them from posting on this page, by making an aggressive accusation that had no basis in fact? Presumably there was some personal attack he made in that exchange? Can you identify it for us?

See also the questions below concerning Guy's odd declaration about what is "acceptable" (to him? to you?) in this article. He's been strangely silent on the point, but since we're all chatting nicely again, perhaps you could fill me in on your take on these issues. BrandonYusufToropov 20:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, as you know, I never accused you of 'making up the "lone wolf" designation for Goldstein', I merely (and properly) asked for a source for the claim, which was apparently boiled down to one link to a partial summary of an article dredged up through Google which no-one here has apparently read. As well, I've explained to you long ago why there is no point in my responding to your statements: When it comes to me, for some reason, you cannot desist from making personal attacks and/or false accusations, nor (apparently) can you apologize for them - see, for example, your latest comment to me above, which contains both a false accusation and some nasty innuendo. Perhaps you have a different standard for personal attacks, if you cannot see that a person (such as Marknorth) who prefaces his very first response to me with the statement "You obviously have strong biases" is making a personal attack. Regardless of the reason, I do not waste my time responding to you, as my time is spent more profitably discussing these matters with people who can communicate with me in a non-policy violating and altogether more collegial way. If you ever decide to return to norms of Wikipedia communication, and apologize for your many previous violations, please let me know. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I for one tend toward the minimalist side here. Maybe a little detail to help people what's meant by lone-wolfism, but keep most in the links.--John Z 00:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IRA

I was wondering why there is no mention of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in the article? Does anyone feel they shouldn't be included? Here is a list of some of their acts violence:

the July 1972 bombing spree known as Bloody Friday, in which downtown Belfast was rocked by 22 bombs in 75 minutes, leaving nine dead and 130 injured;
the 1979 assassination of Lord Mountbatten, Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle;
the 1984 bombing of a Brighton hotel where then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet were meeting, which wounded several British officials and killed four other Britons;
a 1993 car bombing in London’s financial district that killed one person and caused $1 billion of damage;
mortar attacks on the British prime minister’s 10 Downing Street residence and London’s Heathrow Airport in the early 1990s;
and high-profile bombings of civilian targets, including pubs and subway stations, in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
BBC news article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201444.stm)

I would just add them myself, but I've never edited this article before, and someone else may have a better idea of where they should go. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I think it's very odd that they aren't mentioned here. The only reason I can think of might be due to argument - the IRA are considered 'freedom fighters' in some countries. Also, the section about charity funding of terrorism could definitely benefit from some material on the IRA - particularly the support they draw in the US and Scotland. Go ahead and add the material, although maybe don't metion Sinn Fein if you don't want a revert war. illWill 18:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They may be considered "freedom fighters" in some countries but they are widely considered to be terrorists in others, so I don't think there's any problem with including them. They've been left out for the obvious reason, I think, and should be put in. Go ahead, Silversmith.Grace Note 23:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goldstein was identified as a lone wolf terrorist in Summer 2001

Here's the Google listing (subscrip necessary for whole article)

[PDF] A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Baruch Goldstein was identified as a ‘lone wolf’ at the. time – he committed the massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs on his own ...

Further research identifies the publication as:

Terrorism and Political Violence

 	Publisher:  	Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
 	Issue:  	Volume 13, Number 2 / Summer 2001
 	Pages:  	1 - 26

Article title: A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies ...

Let's stop playing games and write a responsible article, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third time I have posed these simple questions for Guy

(What with all the hullaballoo on this page, though, he may have simply not noticed them.)

To whom are the terms "racist" and "Zionist" not "acceptable"? It's your word, you used it, I am curious about why.

Are you saying he wasn't a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization?

Please be specific in your responses. They're pretty simple questions. BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alone or with friends?

How many people can participate in an act of "Lone Wolf" terrorism? The Oklahoma City bombing was conducted by McVeigh and McNichols. Dual wolf terrorism? -Willmcw 19:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Another question is, whose designation of someone as a "Lone Wolf" is authoritative? Shouldn't these people have a description something like "designated as a "Lone Wolf" by the FBI" or something like that? Not in this article of course, where there's already far too much information about them, but in the relevant article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Terrorism"