Talk:History of terrorism/Archive 5

Talk:History of terrorism

Archiving

Can we not let that happen again please, the talk page was massive because people whined about topics being archived then added absolutely NOTHING to them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.158 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Narodnaya Volya, Columbian Paramilitaries and JDL

These 3 still have tags, I'll try to look into expanded the narcoterrorism section if someone else can do the other 2 since i have no in depth knowledge of either. Sherzo (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

editing

I think its time, now the POV pushers and vandals have died down, to look at editing to see what sections actually contribute to the article, and what ones can be condensed, or merged together, for instance are the JDL actually a key group in the development of terrorism, or of some historical note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.33 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the primary (and anonymous) POV pusher and you're still here. Funny you should just happen to choose the JDL for elimination from the article. Why not eliminate a group that is generally not considered terrorist?Haberstr (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to merge the 19th century into 3 sub headings, Anachronism, Nationalism and Race in the US. Sherzo (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The choice of what groups to include should be based on an authority. Since such a wide variety of groups and people have been accused of terrorism in the RS, this should be limited to claims made by recognized specialists on terrorism, for example Walter Laqueur, Gérard Chaliand, or Martha Crenshaw. As WP:UNDUE puts it, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Please note that NPOV is not about giving "equal validity" to the various groups involved (see WP:GEVAL). Looking through Wiki's featured articles, it does not appear that any are organized in the style that this one is. History of American football is a narrative that gives a roughly chronological treatment of the sport. It is not full of little sections that describe individual teams.

As it is, this article seems to be a list of groups somebody felt like writing about. No one called John Brown a "terrorist" when he was alive. How can a "History of terrorism" leave out the Jacobins and the French Revolution? This is where the word comes from. Kauffner (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, and attempted to introduce authority-based inclusion but this has been rejected by mr. anonymous and one other user. I have constructed a chronologically and regionally organized history of terrorism which was also rejected, but which I have stored here: The essential problem, I think, is that there is too much love for the now rightfully eliminated 'history of terrorist groups' wikipedia page, and lovers and supporters of that page have successfully transformed wikipedia's 'history of terrorism' into 'history of terrorist groups'. Haberstr (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't of been oblivious to the months of debate and POV claims in this article and what happened when any reform in that direction is made, just because the history of american football is written one way doesn't make it an applicable style to this article. Also if you read the article you'll see the both the FR and Jacobins are mentioned in the narrative opening to the 19th century, However the comparsion between them and John Brown is a strawman since this is not a contemporary entry from the 19th century it is a modern one with modern perspectives. Sherzo (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: Is it POV to emphasize one terrorist group over another based on that group's notability in the history of terrorism? If it isn't, why is the article organized like this? If it is, why aren't featured Wiki articles organized is a similar manner? Kauffner (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your preaching to the converted, I have always agreed with that, however as the debate has shown even the matter of notability has POV issues attached to it in this article a quick glance at the archive will bear testament to that. However as has been suggested before why don't you write a draft of how you feel the article should be and then we can see what issues arise from that Sherzo (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

also can i ask are you the anon editor? since you removed a large chuck from a section that had previously been removed by anons, also what exactly was wrong with that content since it seems better sourced than what you left? Sherzo (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not anon. The material I deleted was word-for-word repetition of the immediately preceding text. Someone must have cut-and-pasted twice by accident. It didn't occur to me that anyone would object to the removal. Kauffner (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture formatting

Is there some reason why the picture should be reformatted on this page into such a terrible style?

I think it was done by someone trying to get their edit count up, problem is you will have to either undo all the edits or individual restore each pictures formatting Sherzo (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures reformatted? Because it was hard to read the article? And ... I've been here long enough to not give a damn about edit counts. J. D. Redding [btw, don't blank revert, trying to get this article up to a decent historical standard.]

How exactly did the old formatting make it hard to read the article? I for one preferred it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text squeeze. needs to be corrected in many article in wikipedia. J. D. Redding

How exactly was the text being squeezed? it looked fine to me, It's far more visually interesting to have images on both sides of the page than just on one side. Sherzo (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Contras consensus?

Contras consensus? Anyone got a link for that? Can't find it in the archive ... might have missed it. J. D. Redding 05:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is censorship by individuals of terrorism that conservatives prefer to call 'freedom fighting'. There is no link to a consensus because there is and was no consensus. The anonymous writer who said there was knows that. There is similar censorship here of any mention of state terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

stopping your POV pushes isn't censorship, this encyclopedia isn't your soapbox haberstr.

who is this mysteriously anonymous teller of blatant lies about me?Haberstr (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Its archive 3 i think, it was decided that in order keep the size down, to roll it into the cold war proxy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the about of topics that Habster generates i would have no idea, but it was decided to roll it into the cold war proxy section, with mind to try and trim down the article's size. Sherzo (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You and anonymous user are not a consensus.Haberstr (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Best to remove 'World War II resistance groups'

There is apparently one writer in love with this section, but attacks on military targets really have to be considered consensus non-terrorist, don't they? And then there's the very weakly sourced (a single journalist wanting to tart up his opinion piece) claim that the UK-aided resistance established the means of modern 'terrorism'. This is part of a more general and severe weakness of the article, how it hasn't esatablished any limits at all (other than 'it is outrageous to claim that states can engage in terrorism') on what terrorism can mean. I think, just guessing here, it has _something_ to do with non-military targets, right? Why don't we listen to the established experts on the topic, rather than go with gut feelings?Haberstr (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Before mass removal of stuff ... maybe there should be a terminology section added to the beginning of the article to help editors know what to include. just a suggestion. J. D. Redding 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to insert a standard definitions section that stated the wide parameters but also reflected the strong academic consensus that there is no agreed definition of terrorism. That was removed by the conservative tag team here.Haberstr (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a general statement, but general referenced sources ... doesn't need to be an agreed definition of terrorism, just referenced definitions. J. D. Redding 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've repeatedly inserted exactly that (5 or 6 well known and diverse definitions of terrorism) and it has been repeatedly deleted by the usual suspect, anonymous user.Haberstr (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

John Brown

The 'John Brown' section could best be made into a 'pro and anti-slavery violence' section. It's legitimate (though there is no consensus) to classify Brown as a terrorist, but it seems unfair to mention only him and not the pro-slavery 'terrorists' he was at war with. See Haberstr (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then mention them. Along with the border ruffians .. and a few more civil war terrorists. Be bold. J. D. Redding 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say role it all together with the KKK as well and do it on race in the USA. Sherzo (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The KKK and its terrorization of black populations came after the Civil War, in reaction to Reconstruction, while John Brown and his opponents' quasi-military conflicts came before the war. They seem very different in many ways.Haberstr (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

section neutrality is disputed?

Please state why. If not will be removed. J. D. Redding 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'emerging consensus' on a terrorism definition and that sentence has no source. I am attempting to remove that sentence but am being blocked.Haberstr (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

section factual accuracy is disputed?

Please state why. If not will be removed. J. D. Redding 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'emerging consensus' and that sentence has no source. I am attempting to remove that sentence but am being blocked.Haberstr (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition and terminology section

In particular this statement by an editor has me confused: "This history article does not take the later view of the cynic, but relies on the previous reliable definitions." I don't think a history article should take any view, later or former, should not characterize a view as cynical without strong sources, and should not rely on any non-consensus definitions. These are obvious of Wikipedia fundamentals. Also, I think it would be better to list the proposed and non-universal definitions chronologically rather than the reverse. Finally, the second and third sentences in are clearly POV and unsourced. Why not source them if that is possible? My proposed definition section looks like this:

==Definition and terminology==

See also "Definition of terrorism"

The United Nations has stated that "The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. . . . Cynics have often commented that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Proposed and enacted definitions have included:

• League of Nations convention language (1937): "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
• An academic consensus definition (1988): "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
• United States of America (1989): premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
• A legal definition proposed by Alex P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
• UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
• United Kingdom (2000): action for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause involving serious violence against a person or serious damage to property.
• European Union (2002): given their nature or context, [acts which] may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population;
• India (2003): acts [...] veritably as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes'.

Haberstr (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I later removed the "UN Resolution language" because it is not a definition of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how UK definition was cut, but that also seems reasonable, in order to create a less Western-oriented definition section.Haberstr (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is totally unnecessary and only goes to length an already overlong article. Sherzo (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consider the obvious solution: condensing and cutting the "every 'terror' group in the history of terrorism" sub-sections, not the now very short definition section. If not for the edit fighting, the obvious thing to do is not to feel compelled to write a little blurb about every group. I've done that on my wikipedia homepage.Haberstr (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition is unnecessary, thats why it was removed and cut to a link originally it gives as it just detracts focus from the the actual point of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk • contribs)

No. In fact the definition are are necessary and are to to be used in this article ... and this should be made explicit in that section. J. D. Redding 10:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

the definition article handles the definition of terrorism, not this one and content is for reading not editors, lengthening an already long article is pointless when that content has already been forked off before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be new to wikipedia (being that you do not have a User ID), but this is a standard practice in several articles of wikipedia.

Probably been editing longer than you, and simply because i have no interest in populating a user page with vapid details and awards and choose to focus on editing and certainly their is no requirement to have an account.

the definition article handles the definition of terrorism AND is used in this one. (That is why the 'main article' template is used. "When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised." See Template:Main.)

The content is for reading AND editors.

The topic is big and it's not that long of an article

J. D. Redding 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Definition article was forked from this one, as the eytomology section was originally in this article, adding back previously forked content, particularly one that has no specific relevance.

No content is solely for READERS it's an encyclopedia, not your blog, if there are specific notes for editors raise it on a talkpage or place a note in the article, i can tell you how to do that if you don't know

Its already well over the recommended limit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk • contribs)

Please read Template:Main. Also Do not intersperse your comments with mine. Also sign your comments.

Please don't edit others comments in didn't intersperse your comments you used : to start a new comment and i replied to each, also their is no requirement to sign comments.

It is specifically relevant to this section.

It isn't relevant as this is the history not definition article and if you read the many previous debates on the topic in the archive you'd know this was the consensus.

Content is for readers. It also allows editors to know what to include in the article (several articles, especially controversial one, do this).

no content isn't to establish guidance or set a self imposed parameter for editors it solely for information useful to the reader, particularly in an article that is already overlong. as for controversial by undoing the fork you are bringing back more controversy as the definition is probably more controversial than this article.

If you continue to vandalize the article, maybe a request to protect the article from unregistered users is called for.

You are the only one vandalising the article and threaten to protect the article in order to stop non registered users contributing because you disagree with them goes against the very spirit of wikipedia.

Are you a registered user that is not logging in? J. D. Redding 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I think that the academic def (Schmid 1988) is rather loose (and may be more of a catch all than an item for usability), I think that the section in bulk will give help to editor for inclusion and exclusion of items in this article. As a side note, the Alex P. Schmid (1992) line could be footnoted to the Indian supreme court line [as they adopted his stance of 1992]. J. D. Redding 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Schmid and Indian S Ct definitions could be consolidated. It is hard and discouraging to work on fine-tuning and improving when the entire section is repeatedly removed by 92.239.etc.Haberstr (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

92.239.38.135 vandalization

92.239.38.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

[Second time posting; first time was removed]
I have had to remove your interspersed comment in mine; Makes trying to talk to you hard. I do see that trying to talk to you is useless. Please stop doing the reversions. Your actions constitute vandalism. J. D. Redding 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

thats the pot calling the kettle black, you removed other users comments and calling me a vandal for reverting that action are breaches of wikiquette. as for interspersing you start comments : thats the beginning of a new comment for most users, why not add a comment at the start and end of your oddly formated posts to indicated the beginning and end a <message begins> and <message ends> type thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user now with the 92.239. . . . designation has a long history of obstruction here. He has a right-wing ideology and has found a place to accomplish ideological goals here. His latest tactic is to vandalize my personal Wikipedia website with anonymous threats of banning.Haberstr (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The only vandal here is you habby, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder plot

The gunpowder plot was not intended to terrorise anyone, it was intended to destroy the head of the Protestant state (King and Parliament). If it was a terrorist action who says it was. --PBS (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently no one. I've tried to remove it or condense it but this has been resisted ferociously.Haberstr (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article {{Split sections}}

Anyone have opinions on {{Split section}}s of this article?

The following section could have their own page:

3 Modern events and groups upto 3.4.2.18 Umkhonto we Sizwe >> Modern history of terrorism

3.5 Contemporary era events and groups upto to # 3.5.2.2 Jundallah >> Contemporary history of terrorism

See next section for proposal ... >

This page is 102 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. THe information will not be lost, see Wikipedia:summary style; but it would be alot more manageable. Any opinions? J. D. Redding 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

There maybe some value to forking, but just some editing cutting and condensing content but with editors like Haberstr this is incredibly hard to do as you just end up in a revert war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The opposite is the case. I've tried to condense, and even constructed an entire alternative and condensed version of History of Terrorism (see my home page), but 92.239.38.135 and his earlier numbers have resisted all those changes. Look for instance at the entry immediately above, on the Gunpowder Plot, which academic consensus does not consider terrorism. Attempting even to condense Gunpowder Plot has been fought off.Haberstr (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr, so is that a yes on the split? Please answer yes of no. Thanks. J. D. Redding

I changed the talk section header ... the {{split}} was my mistake; should have been {{Split sections}}. This wouldn't be a fork, but would follow Wikipedia:Splitting; then the sub article could be more manageable and accessible. Currently, I lag a bit just loading this page. J. D. Redding 23:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

A general overview with more specific sub articles might be a good idea, but it's a somewhat paradoxically argument from someone who whats to include a completely redundant definition section and supports the expansion of previously condensed material. Sherzo (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, so is that a yes on the split? Please answer yes of no. Thanks. J. D. Redding

Its a tentative yes to developing the idea, but I would suggest this article stay but returned to a more narrative structure as a general overview. Whilst those you 3 parts you suggest are forked off into the new articles which means we could then look at expanding them and giving more indepth detail. Sherzo (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed breakdown

{Using numbers "as of" 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)}

2 Ancient and medieval events and groups up to 3.2.6 Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization >> Early history of terrorism

3.3 20th century events and groupsup to 3.3.3.18 Umkhonto we Sizwe >> Modern history of terrorism

3.4 Contemporary era events and groups upto to 3.4.2.2 Jundallah>> Contemporary history of terrorism

I don't have a problem with splitting, and think you should go ahead and do it, since it seems strongly recommended for plus-100K articles. My understanding is the 'base article' would have a general introduction, including a brief definition section, and very brief summaries of each major 'era', with 'go to' main article pointers in a split up article. I think the proposed way of splitting works well: i.e., 'pre-20th century', '20th century', and 'contemporary'.Haberstr (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions?

Please state Like or Dislike. Thanks.

J. D. Redding 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dislike, dislike csloat (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments?

Comments placed here on why liked or disliked

J. D. Redding 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article could be condensed and forking gives vandals like Haberstr more opportunity to slip in some POV. Have yet to be convinced of what value it be.

There is no case made for splitting here and I think any split would be arbitrary; certainly one like this, not backed up by reliable sources, is unacceptable. See my note above about historicizing terrorism. csloat (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased article

see Terrorism#Pejorative use

This article is biased. It makes accusations that organizations are terrorist without any attribution, I suggest that the provisions of WP:TERRORIST is followed, and that no accusation that any group is made without the organisation or person making the accusation being explicitly stated in the text. If many authoritative sources state that an organisation is a terrorist organisation then pick the most authoritative. --PBS (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree emphatically. Various of us have been attempting to deal with and ameliorate that problem, but with stout resistance put up by 92.239.38.135 and his other anonymous i.d.s.Haberstr (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All except the recent additions have been sourced, but please state specific points were any group is accused of terrorism by wikipedia. Sherzo (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been some good editing to reduce this problem but below are sixteen remaining unsourced terrorism 'accusations'. Nearly all are Wikipedia explicitly describing a group, an act or acts as terrorist, while a few use the passive form and write (more or less) 'have been described' as terrorist but do not provide a source:

1. 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 Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO).

2. The group [the Klu Klux Klan] has often used terrorism, violence and acts of intimidation such as cross burning to oppress African Americans and other groups.

3. These have been referred to as the first acts of "republican terrorism," which became a recurrent feature of British and Irish history.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Ironically, many 21st century Islamic terrorists were trained in the 1980s by the US and the UK to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan.

7. Also during the Cold War, NATO ran a Europe-wide network called Operation Gladio which committed false flag terrorism . . .

8. Through the tactics of coercion terrorism, the FLN gained significant support for a 1955 uprising against loyalists in [Algeria's] Philipville.

9. Pablo Escobar's ruthless violence in his dealings with the Colombian and Peruvian governments is probably one of the best known and best documented examples of narcoterrorism. Paramilitary groups associated with narcoterrorism include the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), and the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC).

10. 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[165] and the PLO

11. Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics show that, from 1980 to 1985, 15 terrorist attacks were attempted in the U.S. by members of the JDL.

12. In the 1990s, acts of terrorism were attempted by Aum Shinrikyo

13. Between 1990 and 1995, the group [Aum Shinrikyo] attempted several apparently unsuccessful acts of biological terrorism . . .

14. The April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing was considered a terrorist act against the U.S. government.

15. [Section Title] 21st century terrorism

16. Major terrorist events after the September 11, 2001 Attacks include the Moscow Theatre Siege, the 2003 Istanbul bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the Beslan school hostage crisis, the 2005 London bombings, the October 2005 New Delhi bombings, and the 2008 Mumbai Hotel Siege.Haberstr (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well this is interesting since 11 was added by you Haberstr i wonder how many others have been, Most you cite have been the addition changes of recent editors like J.D Redding, so some time can be given to allow such new editors the chance to reword or source their edits.Sherzo (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

11 is easy to fix, change 'show' to 'allege' or 'state'. But in this time of mass reversion by you and anonymous against consensus, taking such action is discouraging. Are you considering taking any positive action about the problem?Haberstr (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is consensus that editors should eliminate instances where Wikipedia is calling an act, acts, or groups 'terrorist'. If there is disagreement on this, someone should speak up.Haberstr (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I've begun eliminating all of the problematic, unattributed, usage of terrorism and terrorist.Haberstr (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished all removals of unattributed use of the word 'terrorism'. Of course, when my version is reverted, the problem will reappear.Haberstr (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You should fact tag it first and you shouldn't change it if its sourced. Sherzo (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change anything that was sourced. I removed unsourced assertions and attributed unattributed characterizations.Haberstr (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you did, and if its unsourced place a fact tag on it. You don't need to waste words attributing anything thats what citations and footnotes are for they attributes content to its relevant source, have you never written an academic essay or such? if you haven't been to university then I can understand why you might be unfamilar with it. Also Wikipedia doesn't censor and it is nonsense to censor the word when it's in the title. Sherzo (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TERRORIST "Extremist" and "terrorist" 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, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article." and "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." --PBS (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Where is there any mention of terrorism in the section "History of terrorism#The Easter Rising and the Irish Republican Army? Someone needs to read the Martens Clause clause and the more recently a decent commentary on [ Article 1.4] Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, and reliable sources that Analiese these issues.

The lead section in History of terrorism#20th century events and groups claims all sorts of groups as terrorist but does not provide any sources to say who is making the claim? For example how does one square including Irgun with the fact that in 1947 "the British army in Mandate Palestine banned the use of the term terrorist to refer to the Irgun ziai Leumi headed by Mencanchem Begin because it implied that British forced had reason to be terrified (Wilson, 1949:13)" (Ray C. Rist,,The Democratic Imagination: Dialogues on the Work of Irving Louis Horowitz (Transaction Publishers, 1994 ISBN 1560001747, 9781560001744) p.141) --PBS (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the British army should be treated as the ultimate authority on this issue. A classification should be based on academic literature. Even when a group is unambiguously terrorist, that's not in of itself a sufficient reason to include it. The group needs to be prominent enough to appear in existing histories of terrorism. So many different kinds of groups have been accused of terrorism that any less restrictive policy turns the article a collection of editor's hobby horses. Kauffner (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case as they were the subject of the attack, their opinion is as valid as anyone's. The point I was making is that to call Irgun or any other group terrorist is a point of view, and as such Wikipedia should not endorse that point of view by stating it in the passive narrative voice of the article. --PBS (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Article still needs to be split and summarized

Article still needs to be split and summarized. See #Proposed breakdown, for the {{split section}}, and, to summarize the sections, wikipedia:summary style. J. D. Redding 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the OR is either fixed or removed from the article first, then it would be easier to see if a split was necessary and if it were how it should be done. For example before the advent of the laws of war between civilized nations, who defines what is or is not terrorism? Should the gunpowder plot be in this article etc.

Further the split between "Modern history of terrorism" and "Contemporary history of terrorism" seems very arbitrary for example what places the PRIA in MH and the "Oklahoma City bombing" in CH? --PBS (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"the OR is either fixed or removed from the article first"? That is not an issue with the need to split the article, that is a 'cleanup' issue; this can be dealt with concurrently or at another time [when the articles are at more manageable sizes].

"split between "Modern history of terrorism" and "Contemporary history of terrorism" seems very arbitrary"? How so is it arbitrary? Please explain, if there is a true contestable point; otherwise the following should answer any concern.

Modern history starts around the 1500s; but to distinguish the events contained in this article from early subjects, modern history would denote the late modern period (late 1800 to early 1900s). Contemporary history starts around the last 50 years and is immediately relevant to the present day (relevant events are in contemporary history; usually active militant groups and violent events that have vibrant repercussions on the present). J. D. Redding 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is cleaned up first then there may be no need to split it. But to split it when there are lots of OR problems just means the the problem will become multiplied over more articles. For example you definition of "(relevant events are in contemporary history; usually active militant groups and violent events that have vibrant repercussions on the present)." does not explain why the PIRA are in MH and the "Oklahoma City bombing" in CH, unless there is a source to justify that difference. --PBS (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

cleaned up first? No ... as most (if not all) could be referenced. There is a need to split it; the size is UNMANAGEABLE right now.

As to getting sources ... there's plenty, not that I should do all the footwork ...

• "Oklahoma City bombing" in CH : books.google
• "Provisional IRA" books.google

Now, relevant events are in contemporary history; usually active militant groups and violent events that have vibrant repercussions on the present. J. D. Redding

It is not that citations can not be found, it is that the article needs rewriting to show who claims that an organisation is a terrorist organisation: ""Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed." (WP:WTA). Further you have not for example produced a source that says that the "Oklahoma City bombing" is a "Contemporary era event" but the PRIA was not a Contemporary era orgnaisation. It seems to me that these two and others in those sections are arbitrary distinctions made by an editorial decision, not by the uses of sources. Do you know a source that says otherwise?--PBS (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are references. Because ignoring the references when SHOWN the books (see links) and not to look at them, it is NOT acceptable conduct. J. D. Redding 13:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (PS., PIRA is modern; not contemporary ... OKC is contemporary, see the books.)

Which specific citations do you consider relevant? If they are in a book which you have please quote them. --PBS (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything in the 21st century is contemporary. Many things in the 1990s is contemporary also. Specific citations are in books; will be cited as time goes on. But one cannot be pedantic and this article must be improved (WP:Improve). It is too long, please see Wikipedia:Article size. J. D. Redding 05:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Anything in the 21st century is contemporary" that is an arbitrary division. Do you have a source for such an arbitrary division? For example the PIRA was still an active organisation into the 21st century as they gradually disarmed as the British Army gradually withdrew to its bases it was not until 2005 that the IRA had decommissioned all of their weapons. Also the PRIA was still on the US state department's list as a terrorist organisation in 2007. Yet that is not contemporary while a bombing that took place over 14 years ago in 1995 without any proven organisation behind it is considered contemporary bombing!! This is just one example of how full this article is of of OR and POVs -- see for example my comment above in #Gunpowder plot for another -- before any split is contemplated this article needs cleaning up and the OR culled. Once that is done then there may or may not be a case for splitting it. What is not a good idea is to take an article full of OR and move that OR and split that into several different articles. --PBS (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source that such a division is arbitrary.

It will be split according to Wikipedia:Article size. J. D. Redding

I do not have to provide such a source, the person who wishes to maintain a separation needs to provide a source to justify it. As to your second point there is little point worrying about article size until the article contains text that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When that information that is contained in this article that is not relevant to the topic, and there is a lot, then the article may be too large in which case it could become a summary style article, but at the moment all it would do is take an article full of OR and move that OR and split that into several different articles. --PBS (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You do have to provide such a source, as the person who opposes a separation needs to provide a source to justify it. J. D. Redding 16:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading this article. csloat (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Any kind of periodization of terrorism is somewhat arbitrary given the nature of the phenomenon; however, some scholars have made a useful distinction between "premodern" and "modern" terrorism based not just on time period but also on techniques and doctrine -- "premodern" terrorism (e.g. KKK or Sons of Liberty) involved mob attacks on iindividuals and did not have a doctrine whereas "modern" terrorism begins with the invention of dynamite, which allowed for individual attacks on large groups, as well as the explication of doctrine a la Nechaev and Kropotkin. David Rapaport is a big proponent of this view, and has published on "four waves of modern terrorism," breaking modern terrorism down into anarchist, anticolonial, new Left, and religious "waves" of terrorism. I'm sure other scholars have attempted similar historical taxonomies. csloat (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if we could gather together a few different overviews (such as the David Rapaport one you mention) and present those overviews in this article, it would allow us to junk much of the current article, and create a much informative article. --PBS (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

Due to the amount of recent edit-warring I've protected the article for a week (this can be extended as necessary). I'd strongly encourage all editors to discuss content differences here rather than reverting each other on the article; even where reverts don't cross WP:3RR, they may still result in blocks. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the content-full version. Academic consensus on this topic is that there is no consensus on definitions and parameters of the term terrorism. I've attempted therefore to broaden the article so it reflects the diversity of good and academic sources. But there are a couple of editors that are attempting to enforce a narrow and definitely non-consensus definition of terrorism, which is likely one of the reasons they repeatedly erase the brief definition section that reflects the diversity of definitions. And that's where we've been at for a half year or more.Haberstr (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... from looking at the recent article history and the number of different editors that were resisting LSG280709's content removal, I thought rolling the article back to what seemed to be the 'default' position was the fairest thing to do. It has however been pointed out to me that the spectrum of dispute on this article is wider that I thought, and my assumption that the content removal had no support and was tantamount to vandalism may have been mistaken. Note that my protection of the article is not an endorsment of its content (which I haven't read), and I sincerely apologise to all concerned for my misreading of the situation and my potentially unhelpful restoration of the previous version of the article. EyeSerene^talk 07:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed Images

Why are images being removed with no discussion here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LSG280709 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, its a shame Sherzo (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Haberstr up to his old tricks the page requires increased vigilance until he dies down again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LSG280709 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous autosign guy is resisting Haberstr's restorations of the consensus, ecumenical version of this history, not the far-right 'history as propaganda'.Haberstr (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't Feed the Troll  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LSG280709 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 

I'd like to know on what basis you claim consensus, the only consensus i've ever seen you achieve is in opposition to your POV pushes. Sherzo (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Massive changes to the page, consensus?

We seem to be entering into another edit war about the state of this page, and about 11,000 bytes of info keep disappearing with no explanation. It seems to me the larger version is properly sourced and explained, especially the lede. If there's a previous consensus version, please show me where it is. Just saying "read the talk page" isn't sufficient, please provide a link to a previous discussion or DIFFs showing such. Right now, it looks like four editors approve the short version and two of them are blocked for edit warring. Let's get some discussion going on this one. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced it does not mean it meets the policies and guidelines and should be included in this artilce for example: "Red Rum was a race horse"[1] is true and I have sourced it from a reliable source. That does not mean it should be in this article.

With an article like this, where there is not an agreed meaning to word terrorism. For example take this definition in this article "peacetime equivalents of war crimes." Yet one of the specific parts of the Hague conventions states "A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial." (Art 30). Clear enough, a spy is a war criminal. But the very next article says "A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage." The problem with underlying assumption that has gone into the construction of this article is explained by the Historian Donald Bloxham "[There is a case for trying Churchill as a war criminal.] This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."(Addison, Paul & Crang, Jeremy A. (eds.). Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden. Pimlico, 2006. ISBN 1-8441-3928-X, p. 180.)

It is this concept in the popular mind that "terrorism", "war criminal", and "paedophile" is a moral crime that causes so many of the problems in this article. It is riddled with bias points of view. For example the way groups are named in section headings clearly breaks NPOV because it makes the TOC a POV list.

As an example of what is wrong with this article take the first named section Sicarii Zealots nowhere does it state who considers this group to be a terrorist group or that the action which they carried in were terrorist actions. Compare that entry with the first similar section in Genocides in history which is called Before 1490 where all the genocides mentioned are mentioned in the form "xyz has stated that abc was the first genocide" or whatever. Which article comes closer to a balanced POV as describe in WP:NPOV and in how many cases does this article breach WP:TERRORIST?

In the section above #Article still needs to be split and summarized" see the comment by User:Commodore Sloat that starts Any kind of periodization of terrorism is somewhat arbitrary .... See the section "Political rhetoric, myths and models" in the article Insurgent for an example of how this article could be re-written in a far better way, which would avoid selective lists of groups called terrorist and allow the article to explain the issue in a far more depth. For a start csloat's paragraph here on the talk page is probably of more use for someone interested in the history of terrorism than the whole of the article as it now stands.

Without getting into the pros and cons of the specific edit, deleting 11,000 bytes from this article is neither here not there as it is so badly written at the moment it is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is over long and the poor definition does nothing to serve this article particularly when the previous content was forked to the definition of terrorism page, it only serves to lengthen this article with a poor oversimplification of a complex issue better handled at length in its on article. check the first archive for that discussion, as for the consensus on other reductions, if you feel other editors are lying to you, you'll have to check through the other archives, Haberstr tends to spam alot so there is quite alot to trawl through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Unsigned, the notorious troll, strikes again with unsourced, unevidenced accusations against me. I helped build this article into an ecumenical document to reflect the diverse perspectives on terrorism and its history that are the bedrock of all consensus academic understandings of the term. Pretending, for example, that the French 'Terror' was not a major event in the history of terrorism is silly. Pretending terror bombing immediately preceding and during World War II were not major events in the history of terrorism is also silly. Of course, as with many events in the history, there is disagreement on whether they were in fact acts of terrorism (that's the nature of the term), which is recognized and given prominence in the text here.Haberstr (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have protected this article from editing to prevent further edit warring and have requested informal mediation (here) in an attempt to resolve the dispute and establish a consensus for one version or the other. Currently awaiting someone to take up the task. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr I think it's a bit hypocritical and disengenious for you to call others trolls, my understanding of the term is someone joins internet forums, chats etc, looking to stir up conflict by flaming and other controversial acts but normally only for short spats at a a time. Your actions certainly fit this pattern better than anyone else as evidenced by your frequent talk page posts, POV edits and edit warring. I also think its quite delude and somewhat egotisical for you to claim you helped build this article as you certainly have not, must of your non POV edits have need to be sourced and rewritten by others, the vast majority of article is the same as before you started trying to push your personal view and must of the edits that you've made have had to be reverted for either being POV or adding nothing to the article. One of the only contributions you have made you yourself later took issue with and claimed it was an instance of POV. As for your claims of any sort of consensus as with the misguided debate you engaged in over the UN definition which stemmed from your complete and utter misreading of the statement it is again simple false. Sherzo (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who takes the trouble to research will find your demeaning accusations are groundless. Your comments are helpful toward condensing and improving the article how?Haberstr (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Condense, part 1

Virtually all the topics in this history have large articles associated with them in other places in Wikipedia. Rather than split the history arbitrarily, I propose we condense it. First on my list would be to cut Section 2 deeply, removing the Sicarii Zealots and Al-Hashshashin sub-sections and adding a couple sentences to the main Section 2 about the two groups. This really is pre-history of terrorism, and takes up too much space, and of course readers have access to main articles on those two topics, so we don't need to go on and on about them here.Haberstr (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think they are more valuable than some of the later stuff that could be rolled together into more general themes, like Nationalism, Anarchism, Race in America etc. Sherzo (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your response is a sidetrack and unhelpful to a condensation project. Of course the later stuff needs to be condensed too, but this entry is entitled "Condense, part 1." Do you think the early entries can or should be condensed at all?Haberstr (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For the Record

I have a bit more then minimal involvement in this case, I was gonna take the Mediation but decided I probably wasn't bias (See mine and LSG's talk page, for mine it's Archive 3 I believe, I reported him for 3RR and threatened ANI)--SKATER ^Speak. 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)