Talk:Terrorism/Archive 14

Quoting nonsense-English in the article
''Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say:
 * "There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless." ''

This is logically absurd. The (very accurate) "famous phrase" refers to a "terrorist rather than a specific act. "It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act." Exactly. It doesn't specifically deal with "terrorism"; just people who are described by their opponents as such. How someone who mangles logic and English like this can be regarded as an "expert" on anything is a puzzle; but the section should be removed from the article. Sarah777 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While your criticism may be technically correct, it seems to me that the famous statement is often used as a defense of those who are accused of being terrorists. Rudner is just pointing out that the famous statement is not a good defense of someone who attacked civilians, and that whether someone is a terrorist or not is an objective fact rather than a political position. All terrorists aren't just mislabeled by their opponents. I think the quote is highly insightful and well stated, though perhaps not perfectly stated. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism
May I ask why Islamic terrorism is listed on the main terrorism page yet Christian / Catholic, Jewish and other religious terrorism is not?


 * Because Islamic Terrorists aren't just terrorists who happen to be Islamic. They are terrorists who are driven by an extreme version of Islam. IRA terrorists may be Catholic, but they are not driven by Catholicism (and don't praise Jesus or shout out religious slogans like Muslim terrorists do), but rather a nationalist hatred for Great Britain and Irish protestants whom they view as being British puppets who are economically keeping down the catholics in Northern Ireland. To be sure, there are some Palestinian groups who are really more terrorists of nationalist grievance than terrorists of religion (though, the groups funded from Iran are closer to being religious extremists). Al Qaeda, however, is pure religious extremism, at least that's whats indicated by their rhetoric and the writings of the leadership. Just a question, do you actually believe that religion is something that has no bearing or cause on the actions of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.?68.164.6.249 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely this section should be clear of any specific faith based propoganda?

If not, then surely there should be a comment on the other faiths too, or are you simply trying to promote a bias ideology of what terrorism is?

For example, it is a fact that the IRA, who are a Catholic terror group have commited hundreds of attacks in the name of terror, yet they are not mentioned.

So I ask again - do you feel that having a section for Islamic terrorism under the main 'Terrorism' category is justified, unbias, factual and fair?

Is Wikipedia unbias and factual or another dumping ground for any random opinion?

I look forward to hearing your answers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.65.219 (talk)


 * You may find a discussion of this in the archives - if you look near the top of this talk page, there are archived past discussions you may find useful. As for the rest, if you have a proposal to make, we are listening.  General assertions aren't helpful, reliably sourced, neutral changes are helpful.  And remember that you can fix perceived problems in the article by editing it - though due to the controversial nature of the article, you may wish to propose large-scale changes here first.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
Yet again the lead sentence has been gradually morphing into one specific definition of what terrorism is. I propose to go back to one of the earlier structures that reports that there are lots of definitions and that to date there is not internationally agreed definition for terrorism, For example see this one from the beginning of the year. --PBS (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes domestic terrorism?
I seem unable to find any flat-out information on this, so I'll just lay my ignorances bare to thee. Is citizenship (and terrorist activitiees, of course) the only requisite to being a domestic terrorist? If someone moves from, say, Canada and never gets U.S. citizenship, and lives here for many a year, and commits and act of terrorism, is that still considered "foreign terrorism"? Is it more of a case-by-case issue, in which the person's motives, methods, and social integration play critical roles? Even then, if a person were merely a the "doer" for a larger, foreign organization, is that domestic or foreign terrorism? An example would be something like Al Qaeda hiring, funding, supplying, and directing middle-aged white men to blow up a government building, or something. I'm just trying to make sense of the "border" between different types of terrorism, though I wouldn't be against adding a section on this. NeutronTaste (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is not already in Wikipedia with cited sources, this is a question to answered by looking for reliable sources that discuss such on such things (and then adding a piece into this article if it is relevant and interesting). However in case of regional nationalism the definition over whether the terrorist is domestic is itself part of the issue. "The South was my country". --PBS (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the help. Very interesting link, by the way. I will dig around and try to find legal, or generally accepted data on this. NeutronTaste (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism (An Islamic Monopoly, or an Unfounded Allegation) 1
Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F

"Who owns the Web site?"

... SNIP...

"The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view."

So, I will ask my question again, aswell as three others, and please note that I don't want a reply telling me that I am able to submit a proposed change - I am familiar with how Wiki's work, I am asking you a question so please answer it.

1) Why is "Islamic Terrorism" defined as the only faith-based religion on the main 'Terrorism'? 2) Why are all other belief systems left out from this section? 3) Shoudl the main 'Terrorism' page be unbias and unspecific? 4) Where is your proof that there is such a thing as 'Islamic Terrorism', may I see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.98.1.11 (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't contributed to this page so I can offer an outsider's opinion for what it is worth (=not much).
 * 1) Why is "Islamic Terrorism" defined as the only faith-based religion on the main 'Terrorism'? I guess because of well meaning systemic bias, 9/11 etc etc. Who knows but I think that section of the article should deal with things at the level of religiously motivated terrorism more generally covering the various types and point people towards the detailed articles about the various type.
 * 2) Why are all other belief systems left out from this section? See above.
 * 3) Shoudl the main 'Terrorism' page be unbias and unspecific? Of course.
 * 4) Where is your proof that there is such a thing as 'Islamic Terrorism', may I see it? I think that is a question for the 'Islamic Terrorism' page...or is it called Islamist again now. Anyway, my point is that that article should be the master and this one should follow the terminology used there.
 * Ultimately though there is little point asking questions like these. It's better to make specific proposals based on reliable sources. Or simply be bold and take it from there.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism (An Islamic Monopoly, or an Unfounded Allegation) 2
I removed it from there are replaced it with a 'general "religious terrorism" section' taken from your own pages, however it was removed and the same unproven, unsubstantiated garbage was put back. Garbage? Well, there is no factual proof that Islam was the cause of 9/11, there is only accusation and theory, which is garbage. So Wikipedia is basing articles on heresay, which is not great for an encyclopedia, right or wrong? answer please?

"I guess because of well meaning systemic bias, 9/11 etc etc" - you guess, you assume, you think - you have no proof therefor you are spreading potential lies, slander and incorrect information. Lets look at what the founder of Wikipedia stated again: "The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view." So your systemic assumption is bias, provoked by brainwashing and media propoganda, or social engineering, or you are a liar, which is it?

I will again remove the page but no doubt it will be re-added to further the falsehood based on unfactial assumption rather than truth and factual knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.13.2 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're addressing your questions to something that doesn't exist. There is no "you" to respond to questions like "...you are a liar, which is it?". Articles develop as individuals like you add, amend and subtract material, sometimes with discussion and sometimes without. Anyone can participate. The closest thing to a "you" is the set of all of the people that have edited the article or the talk page. That set includes you now. You will need to argue your case on this page with people who care about this article. Be polite or stop talking. You won't get anywhere saying things like "spreading potential lies, slander and incorrect information". People don't donate their time here to have shit thrown at them. If you want something changed, explain why and make sure you have a reliable source to support your statement. Saying something like X did or did not cause Y is meaningless unless it comes from a reliable source and is directly related to a proposed change to the article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism (An Islamic Monopoly, or an Unfounded Allegation) 3
"You" is the oligarchy that is in control of Wikipedias publishing and editing, not a specific editor. No, it does not include me, I am simply trying to enforce the founding principle on which Wikipedia was 'apparently' created, to share an unbias, factual warehouse of information. I have no power of decision on what can and will stay, I can simply appeal to the you 'wikipedia editors' own human decency, goodness and truth to do the right thing. What I am pointing out is that a majority belief does not make fact and being that this is an encyclopedia, anything that is not a fact and merely based on a majority opinion should be removed with vigour and a review of publishing policy should be implemented whereby non-factual, or potentially non-factual information be removed as a priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.255.83 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * um...there isn't an oligarchy. You misunderstand Wikipedia. Yes, the "you" does include you. You are a 'wikipedia editor'. You don't have to appeal to anyone unless they revert you. Read WP:BRD. You have the same rights and privileges to edit anything in the article as anyone else according to mandatory policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV etc and the various guidelines and you are encouraged to do so. Wikipedia has nothing to do with 'human decency, goodness and truth' apart from perhaps in the sense that certain aspects of it (e.g. some images) are within scope of the universal declaration of human rights. It's about providing verifiabile, neutral information based on reliable sources and Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. It's just an encyclopedia. See WP:MORALIZE. You cannot 'appeal' to an imaginary oligarchy. If you think something needs to be fixed, fix it. If you find that someone is deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting things then there are complaint procedures to follow.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Civil Disorder a type of Terrorism ?

Civil Disorder
The artle defines Civil Disorder -A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Are you kidding me ? When you click on the Civil Disorder, wiki defines it to include illegal parades and sit-ins. Once a illegal parade or sit in turns into a riot, it is no longer civil, its a riot. I suggest this sentence be removed. Bill Ladd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Terror Bombing
Talk:Terror_bombing All contributions to the current discussion would be welcome. Sherzo (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism article
I have recently cast my eye over the eco-terrorism article. This article is factually deficient and is definitely not NPOV. The article on terrorism is, on its face, very good and I am asking that editors of this article to please turn their attention to the eco-terrorism article and add material that can add to, and enhance, this article as well as to remove POV bias and correct the factual errors and omissions. Thanks, TranquillityBase Message 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky et al
I think a word should be placed on the views of Noam Chomsky and related commentators on terrorism.

(e.g., http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm) 82.247.85.103 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

neologism category
It can't be a neologism if it ddates back to the Jacobins or Sechayev, surely? How old does a word have to be before it stops being a neologism? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your cat removal was entirely correct. It is used in new ways... that doesn't make it a neologism.-  Sinneed  23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * since UN or FBI definitions on terrorism are recent(20th century), ir means that i.e. George Washington or the French Resistance were not terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.122.85 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we used to call "the moon" "the big cheese round in the sky", it is still "the moon", now. - Sinneed

Too complicated
Too long to really capture the idea and flavor behind what really is terrorism.

The manner in which the term is used is an oxymoron. All violence creates fear, being it through physical or psychological means, through state or non-state actors.

Attempting to define one parties violent or more violent norms as terrorist/terrorism (because you are the recipient of that violence) and other parties violent norms as being completely acceptable (because you are the provider of that violence), is a slippery freudian of ´lepers´ in ones own head, not terrorism. (reference to U2´s song One and historical soundtracks might be appropiate)

If it were simpler, the current exposé might leave more of a feel for the situation than simply propaganda for terrorist or counter-terrorist movements.

Attempting to define terrorism through a short list of points might be more usefull than an exposé. A long time ago, that was, if I remember correctly, how this part of the encyclopedia started.

(190.38.99.16 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

An argumentation for the use of terrorism as an pejorative can be found in "Enemy of Humanity: The Anti-Piracy Discourse in Present-Day Anti-Terrorism", Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 21, no. 3, 2009, s. 401-411, by Mikkel Thorup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.18.220 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I made a few edits, and found a few further issues that still need attention.
 * I added cite tags because many statements were completely unsourced.
 * I removed "foreign" from the phrase political and foreign enemies, changing it to "political and foreign enemies" as this is much more comprehensive
 * While the use of violence by a state against alleged terrorists may be terror, or may at least be alleged by others, this needs a source
 * The "violent non-state actor" section is unsourced and may be original research.
 * Finally, an issue in the first setence of the whole article: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. This is problematic because what does the "use of terror" mean? Does it mean the creation of terror? Or using terror that has already been created by others? Terror is also undefined in the article. Defining terrorism as the use of terror comes close to the faux pas of defining a word by using the word itself in the definition. --达伟 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of definition of terrorism is very simple. The problem is that some people in wikipedia do not want to use the word and keeps mudding the waters. They keep saying that there are many different definitions what is true for each single concept of human science.


 * There are many definitions but mostly all of them cover the same semantic field.


 * The one we have now is pathetic since tries -succesfully- to not say anything.


 * A correct definition should be "Terrorism is the use of violence by non-governametal entities to coerce societies of governements to behave in a certain way or to adopt certain policies. The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages.An intuitive way of look at the concept is to see as 'crimes of war' in absence of war."


 * This definition can referenced to Hoffman and many other authors and all its points can be easily defended. If academic references are used, no problems appear. It is important that people accepts the easy point that when an army does terrorist-like acts, they must be called 'crimes of war' and that the criminal represion of civilian population by their own governement must be called diferently because is a diferent thing.--Igor21 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "The one we have now is pathetic since tries -succesfully- to not say anything" - Please remember to wp:assume good faith.
 * I don't think you will find strong support for leaving out government-sponsored or even government-performed terrorism.
 * "can referenced to Hoffman and many other authors and all its points can be easily defended" - I would like to see that *ADDED* (in a way that shows the conflict with the current definition without removing the current definition), with sources, with an explanation of how NO significant wp:RS consider/report government acts to be acts of terrorism.- Sinneed  15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The current definition and the text that follows it are a kind of mindless rambling going from no-where to no-where. In wikipedia parlance I would say that thiese explanations about that there is no definition are primary source and make use of misleading quotes. There is certainly a definition that has some nuances but with a clear core.


 * I have no time to discuss endelessly things that are self-evident and that everybody minimally versed in the subject knows. If you want to add something to the text, good luck when the terrorism-deniers arrive with their "there is no definition" and their "everything and/or nothing is terrorism".


 * Answering your point, government-sponsored terrorism is terrorism as long as it is not performed directly by members of governement agancies. If anyone reading this is interested in knowing about terrorism, read "Inside terrorism" by Hoffman (and the books that will find in the bibliography page of the book) and forget this article. --Igor21 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Real definition of terrorism is trying to define it. Scary prospect. :) It's such a loaded term.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, very scary. Much better to leave the current non-sense with its misleading quotes.--Igor21 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor21 you have a specific POV with which you try to simplify what is a very complicated subject. For example you wrote above that "The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages." So should we conclude that the PIRA were guerrillas not terrorists or how do we explain no go areas and Operation Motorman? The French resistance did not hold territory until the summer of 1944 so prior to that were they guerrillas or terrorists? --PBS (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Philip Baird Shearer : I have went through your quizes many times and I know how useless it is. In case the user who answers manages to go throgth the whole checklist, he will find another longer one with even more intrincated questions because you always have another question or another border case to show.


 * However, for the benefit of people who did not have the privilege of reading previous exchanges I will say two easy key concepts :


 * -What is terrorist (or not) is the INCIDENT, not the organization.


 * -The existence of border cases does not imply that categories do not exist


 * There is scientific literature about terrorism and is not correct to quote only the first page (Where says that there are many definitions of terrorism). We should go to the second page where fully detailed and agreed definitions are provided.


 * You have been for years oposing "terrorism" to have a definition in en:Wikipedia because your POV is that "everything and nothing is terrorism". I guess this time will be the same since nobody has the time you seem to have to impose your POW. But, please do not accuse me of having a POW when I can source definitions in the very same books that are currently tortiously used for for denying its existence.--Igor21 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "-What is terrorist (or not) is the INCIDENT, not the organization." The British and American governments do not agree with you or there would be no lists of prescribed organisations.


 * No one denies that there are lots of definitions of terrorism, (or that the term is prerogative). The differences between who is and is not a lawful combat has been noted at a diplomatic level since the formulation of the Martens Clause at the end of the 19th century. As always the devil is always in the detail, that is why examples such as the two I gave above help to clarify that the issue is complicated. -- PBS (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I have never seen any of your examples helping to clarify. They are always specificately aimed to blur the concept and to enhance the subjetivity of its atribution. I can show how misleading they are, but as I always tell you is not a question of opinions but a question of respecting sources.


 * I have never said that diplomatic or political sources can be used but all the way round. Diplomats are biased since this is the very nature of their works. To be honest, I think that the reason you name diplomatic and political sources is because you know that are contradictory. I have offered already academic sources that are not self-contradictory.


 * You do not like the level of analisis based in incident because all the misteries disappear.


 * I am sorry to say that your idea that terrorism is just a word that can be thrown to everybody who does political wiolence is very close to be WP:OR. It can be true when we speak about mass media, colloquial pub conversations or political spin, but becomes false when we speak about people who speaks with the proper level of language.--Igor21 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting this up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of last section
(but a section break for easier editing)

I think the views of Hoffman and Schmidt need serious treatment, but these two are not the be-all end-all of the topic what's terrorism. And I don't think it helps to say that alternative definitions of terrorism are "vulgar". Since my proposal has been up there a few days now, and there hasn't been much interest or reaction, I think it's time for a change here. Currently, in my view, the LEDE is mostly unworkable; I think my proposed version (above) is better but not perfect and does a somewhat better job of saying what people are saying, and tries to be fair to everybody. I'm switching it in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I Must say that your text has serious flaws, specially in the second paragraph, but it is clearly better thant the current non-sense so you can go ahead. Any improvement is good.
 * "Vulgar" it is not unrespectful but a way of saying non-scientif and non-academic. Let see what happens when the tribe of negacionist sees that you have changed his gospel ("Terrorism is everything and is nothing and we have books that say that there zillions of definitions").--Igor21 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being understanding and your support. I agree this is a difficult problem and there's lots of disagreement. I put in the new lede (somewhat changed from above) and I agree it's better than before, but that people will disagree about it. I'm wondering whether this kind of construct is best: like, here's a grabbag of terms which are sometimes used to describe terrorism (eg deliberate, against innocents, violence, etc) and the more terms that apply, the more likely that someone will agree "that's terrorism". Sheesh. If your sense of "vulgar" is nonacademic, then I'm kind of agreeing what you're saying somewhat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me add that I agree with your assessment of the second paragraph. Can you improve it? I'm unhappy with it too. I think more references helps whatever we do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * JBS is here so the game is over.--Igor21 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Lets try. What you think about :
 * "Terrorism, despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition,[1][2][3] is considered to be the deliberate[4] use of violence[5] or the threat of use of violence[6] directed at non-combatants[7] to coerce governements systematically[8] by attracting media attention[9] to push causes which may be political[4][3][5] or ideological[6] or religious[6]. There is considerable disagreement about the frontiers of the term since academically is restricted to non-governemental organizations while in daily language is used more broadly. Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others.


 * The term is charged politically and emotionally and has strong negative connotations and it is used very often as a political insult.[12] In non-academic contexts its intended meaning often depends on the side that the user takes in the conflict. It is also very commonly accepted by mass media that legitimacy -or not- of the alleged cause is relevant in the use of the term. Political calculus has impeded to formulate a juridical definition internationally accepted since every country has interes in conflicts whose actor do not want to be qualified as terrorists. To complicate things even more, many organizations use tactics that can be qualified as terrorist mixed with others that cannot.


 * To avoid all these problems in academic contexts is the incident that is qualified as terrorism, not the organization. If an incident of political violence is purposely commited with the goal of atracting attention and its author is not a state, the incident is a terrorist incident whatever his author, and whatever his goal." I will not put refs before is agreed but all this is easily to reference--Igor21 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your rewording of the first sentence (the "coercion" thing was out of place) so your wording here is an improvement. What I'm not clear about is how much the academic vs nonacademic distinction is important. What I'm saying is that I think some academics think of terrorists as governments (look at Benjamin Ginsberg perhaps or Noam Chomsky. I'm saying I think we're making our jobs easier (with less fuss) if we leave the whole academic vs nonacademic distinction out of it; that is, we're opening ourselves up for even more debate by putting that in. I'm not happy with the construction "frontiers of the term". I like the old idea I had of here's the grabbag of criteria: the more they are, the greater the likelihood it's terrorism, that is, my current sentence "An act which meets many or all of these criteria is often considered to be terrorism." I still somewhat prefer the phrase "strong negative connotations" (since it has a wider reach) rather than "political insult" but if you feel strongly about this, use your term. I liked the whole 100+ definitions idea which was from before; it says very quickly how widespread the disagreement is; in my own researching stuff, I've come upon considerable variation in definitions -- they're not all alike, in my sense. Now, this legitimacy subject -- sheesh -- are you trying to say that if the popular perception of the underlying cause is seen as "legitimate", then terrorism is seen as a less bad way or more morally acceptable way of furthering that legitimate cause? If so, this is a complicated idea that I think belongs in the body of the text, now in the LEDE where we're trying to at least establish the parameters of the term. But how about this change: instead of just saying governments, say this: "People have described opponents as terrorists to delegitimize them", and cut out the word government (or change it to people). What do you think about that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction helps a lot since there is a clear academic definition but people -including you- think that the vulgar meaning (or non-academic) also must be reflected. Ginsberg and Chomsky are not relevant since the latter is academic in other fields other than terrorism and the former is a kind of partisan spin doctor whose opinions are one-use-only. Hoffman and Schmidt are real academic people publishing about the subject and doing presentations in congresses and simposia--Igor21 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I respect Hoffman; I read most of his book a while back. I don't know Schmidt (or if I came across and read his stuff, I don't recall the name). The word "vulgar" means lower-class, crude, and I don't see how that can apply here. I've read parts of rather sophisticated books on terrorism, and my sense is that there isn't yet a formal discipline called "terrorism studies" (although some academics are trying hard to make one, and it may well happen in the future). It's not like "terrorism" is a field of study like "sociology" with established thinkers and approaches; rather, it's sometimes a branch of law, or criminology. But I don't think there is some community out there of academic terrorism experts who have any kind of consensus about what terrorism is, or how to fight it, or how to prevent it. Rather, there are some so-called "experts" out there who try to make a living at it like Brian Michael Jenkins. This whole field is evolving quickly. Many people in government know a lot, but can't say what they know. There's quoted sources saying Hoffman has changed his mind about what constitutes "terrorism" after a recent event, but I'm not blaming him for that; what I'm saying is that things are changing. Do you have any information suggesting that the academic community of terrorism experts has solidly rallied behind a particular definition? Show me what you have supporting this and I'll consider what you have to say. I'm working on a new article called "terrorism prevention strategies" and am learning new stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the term "vulgar" you are right and we can better substitute by "common" or "colloquial".


 * I can understand your perception but -with due respect- I must say that is completely incorrect. There is a corpus of doctrine and an acedemic comunity of people studying terrorism. Hoffman is the most visible expert but if you read the bibliography of his book you will find other authors and reading them you will find more and more. Another good source of academic experts is the bibliography of John Horgan's book "The Psychology Of Terrorism" that in itself is a very good compendium of the academic knowledge in the subject.


 * There is nothing magic in terrorism. Is a perfectly known tactic and if you study incidents is quite easy to say which are terrorism and which are not. The problem is its coloquial use as an insult or as a target marker that completely blur the concept and converts in a kind of inefable threat. E.g. the use of the word by Bush was extremely misleading since he called "terrorist" everybody who violently oposes USA following the path of Israel spin doctors who have been doing this for years. Terrorism is a tactic as heinous as it is but the people who practise do because they think it helps to push their goals, not because they are evil.


 * Wikipedia must spread rational and scientific ways of looking at terrorism as must spread rational and scientific ways of looking to H1N1 virus (Swine Flu). To make available sophisticated thinking to common people is the reason to exist of enciclopedias. Terrorism is an extremely critical issue in the begining of the XXI century and a rational handling by public opinion need the knowledge that Hoffman.--Igor21 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I laud your sense of mission about pursuing a rational approach. I favor reason, rational thinking, rigor myself. Academics and experts and strategists I've read regarding the subject of terrorism pretty much agree that there isn't one accepted definition of terrorism -- Hoffman himself says this in his Inside Terrorism and devotes the first or second chapter I think to his point that there isn't one definition, and that the term is fraught with conceptual problems. Check out: Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature by Alex Peter Schmid -- now there's a book that will really make your eyes water -- it's academic gobbledygook at its finest -- but this book, as well, suggests there isn't one accepted version of what constitutes terrorism. I, myself, see terrorism in a different light -- as "violence against individual rights"; it's a particularly broad conception that includes muggers as terrorists, and in my sense of the term, political agendas and media attention are irrelevant. But I can't include my own sense here; rather, we have to work with what the mainstream sense of the term is. And you'll admit that it varies widely, even within the academic community as I've tried to suggest. If you have solid evidence that academics, who are identified as terrorism experts, are all standing behind one version of the term terrorism, please say exactly what this definition is, who is supporting it. If you can do that, I'll support your efforts to emphasize that definition here (or we can make a special section of this article dealing with that). But my sense is, is that such a consensus about the meaning of the term has not happened yet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture?
Shouldn't we have a picture in the beginning of the article, showing the typical muslim terrorist? With a turban and an AK47. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.224.216 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical terrorists aren't "Muslims"; that's a POV issue. Terrorists come in all shapes, colors, religions, stripes, unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism and Abuse
I have been doing a lot of work singlehandedly on Abuse. Terrorism is a subset of abuse. Just about everybody you could imagine can potentially abuse and it looks like a wide range of people can terrorise. Any assistance on Abuse would be appreciated but the toughest sections to do with the common characteristics of abusers, regardless of the context, remain to be done. --Penbat (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you're doing a good job on Abuse, that is, you're not abusing your editing role. :) Many subsections. What do you think of the updated definition for "terrorism" on this page? We've been struggling with it; it's like trying to grab water in one's hand.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Intro text here looks reasonably OK. Personally i would slice the individual Key Criteria into subsections. You could do what i did for the abuse intro and quote a dictionary definition. Anyway i understand the problem. It is difficult in some cases to draw the line as to whether something is or isnt abuse, same problem with terrorism, bullying, corruption etc etc. On the abuse article i am trying to cover it in general and not get too bogged down in specifics. The underlying psychology of an abuser is typically similar regardless of the context or type of abuse.--Penbat (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for feedback. The abuse article has an interesting format. So it's like a gateway term for many other articles. Interesting idea. One comment was that the TOC looks a bit long (that is, possibly not change it, but hide one of the levels -- I think there's a way to do this, so it's shortened). But the alphabetical order idea seems smart (for the types of abuse). I've found pictures help improve a page visually, but on a topic like abuse, it would be counter-productive perhaps to see images of people with bruises etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think dictionaries are a better source than world renown academic specialists. For instance the former non-sense "Terrorism is the use of terror" came out of a dictionary.--Igor21 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I could not avoid listing all the abuses and giving a short summary but primarily that is not what the article was primarily intended to be. In time i will add extra sections covering the phenomina (style and characteristics) of abuse and abusers collectively, independant of context. If i could I would have organised the individual abuses into logical groups but there is no ideal way of doing it that works well. Yes the TOC is long but i think the way it is done is the least worst solution. --Penbat (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism versions
I think the current version of terrorism (let's call it the "Igor" version) is better (but not perfect; nothing will be) than the previous one since it has (1) more references (2) better describes the term (3) emphasizes the lack of agreement about what the term includes. In addition, while many see terrorism as "systematic" violence, a one-time horrible act can also be seen as terrorism; so the "systematic" part of terrorism needs de-emphasis in my view. To avoid an editing war, if people feel strongly about one version or the other, we should debate here on the talk page. Which one do people prefer? Or is there some compromise version which will succeed better?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is responding to remarks by User:SlimVirgin on another talk page. There will always be battling over an issue as contentious as the definition of terrorism. I prefer a definition which is longer, backed up by numerous references; others have different ideas. This is a complex topic, and I think the fair assessment is that we're ALL going to disagree about the definition. I use references to support my sense of what this definition is about, and others are free to dispute with me. I understand that some editors such as SlimVirgin don't like template references; I have no objection if SlimVirgin wants to change the references to non-template versions. My general sense is: if this dispute is merely about referencing formats, then this is a non-issue, and making too big of a deal about referencing formats might count as disruptive editing. Please assume WP:FAITH. Please understand that this is always going to be an ongoing process to specify what a definition about this highly controversial topic is all about..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As we disagree, I think that the previous introduction is better because we can agree on a minimum definition. -- PBS (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * why do you think the previous definition is better than the Igor definition? I don't think the previous definition says much; the word "coercion" is vague, and doesn't come up in sources much. While I think there is disagreement about what, exactly, terrorism is, I think the Igor definition makes this obvious. And it touches on a lot of things that people THINK involve terrorism without weighting it too much towards one particular definition. The Igor definition is well-referenced, with perhaps 10 or 12 references in the first line alone; the previous definition has few references. Please make a case why you prefer one definition over the other, supported by facts, references. Until then, I'm advocating the Igor definition, but am willing to seek reasonable compromise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on either of them, but the references in Tom's are completely unnecessary (25 in the first paragraph!), and the templates make it impossible to edit well. Leads don't need as many references anyway; see WP:LEAD. The two versions side by side below. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SV: I've added a collapse box (wood for the trees) please remove it if you do not approve. --PBS (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's open up discussion about which is the preferred definition. The SlimVirgin definition? Or the Igor definition?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the Igor definition since it has MORE references. This is the first instance where I've seen something reverted because it had "too many references". I'm suspicious of people who want less references; seems to violate WP:VERIFY. My problems with the SlimVirgin version are these: I don't think "systematic" and "coercion" are that relevant to what terrorism is about. A one-time attack such as 9/11 is certainly terrorism, and it isn't "systematic" but a one-time deal. But this is the kind of subject Wikipedians fuss over. "Coercion" -- most definitions of terrorism don't even use this word. So, please vote for a version.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Igor one vote from me. Reasons as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No poll so early in a discussion, they tend to be divisive and do not help build a consensus. (I can provide links to the policies and guidelines on this but I will assume for the moment we all know this).-- PBS (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion has been going on a LONG TIME. And it will keep going on a LONG TIME. And there will be numerous polls. Btw I like your show/hide box. Cool feature.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with the new first sentence ((the "Igor" version) Let us call it the new version and the old version for that is what they are and it definitely is not SV's version) is that it is asynthesis complete with with weasel words "often considered to be" --PBS (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Tom, as you know very well, neither is the "SlimVirgin version." SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm not happy with the "often considered" either, but is there a better way to put it? Weasel or no weasel (by the way: accusing another editor of writing like a "weasel" violates WP:CIVIL) My problem with the SlimVirgin or prior version is that the definition ignores whole areas which most people consider as terrorism, such as ideological basis (political/religious), deliberately trying to create fear, targeting noncombatants, etc etc. In my research about terrorism, these subjects came up again and again and again (in the references). I think they merit inclusion, while agreeing that there is huge disagreement at the same time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing you of writing like a weasel, just of using a weasel turn of phrase, for which there is a specific guideline see Avoid weasel words, and from your reply, one of which I presume that you were not aware. So no offence was meant, and I hope now you have my explanation none taken. -- PBS (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand you didn't mean to sound insulting. My main objections are with the whole "Weasel" policy which, in my view, is insulting in its very nature -- it's a quickie way for Wikipedians to dumb down the level of editing into a mudfight, in my view. I've been aware of the weasel policy for a while and I don't like it; my personal policy is NOT to use the "weasel" tag on anybody, period, and I urge others to do likewise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My problems with the definition continue. Almost all senses of the definition of terrorism use the term "violence"; but Wikipedia's current one doesn't. Why? And I agree with Igor that there's a problem when a word like "terrorism" uses the word "terror" to describe itself. I have serious problems with the idea that "systematic" is the basis of the definition -- the fourth word here. My hunch is many definitions of terrorism have some variant of "systematic" in them, but many do not; and "coercion" seems, in my view, nebulous, essentially, forcing people to do things they don't want to do. In my sense, this concept is tangential to the essence of terrorism. But my biggest problem, overall, is that important senses of the term, which most people think of when they think terrorism, are omitted in the first paragraph -- the media aspect, the attack on innocents, the ideological aspects -- these are mainstream views about what constitutes terrorism, and they're omitted. Their omission brings serious distortions; and while there is disagreement about the extent and number of which parts of this definition belong here, we need to say something like "most people consider these aspects to be part of terrorism", which is, unfortunately, the best (perhaps) we can do, given the huge disagreement about this definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What does "innocent" mean? as in "directed at innocent non-combatants" does that mean it is not terrorism to target guilty non-combatants? Are you suggesting that most people who consider the 9/11 attacks to be terrorists would not consider the attacks on the US Marines in Beirut not to be terrorist attack? Or that they would make a distinction between the flights flew into the World Trade Centre and Flight 77 which targeted the Pentagon? The IRA states that attacks on the City of London were designed to disrupt the British economy, so are those terrorist attacks? As a general rule people seem to be able to place attacks on a scale of moral outrage. So an attack aimed at the City of London, was not see by the British and Irish publics as being a grave as the near simultaneous attack on Warrington, although for the British government the attacks on the City caused far more problems. The definition you have synthesised does not seem able to distinguish between the two. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, I agree with you about the nebulousness of "innocent", in the sense that this whole "innocent" vs "guilty" distinction is thoroughly vacuous. But that's my POV. What I've been trying to do is add the NPOV version of terrorism, and in researching the topic, I've found that the word "innocent" comes up again and again, and it usually means "non-combatants", unarmed, unprepared people going about their daily lives, people who don't know their attackers. Here's Kean from the 9/11 Commission:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Those who perished in those attacks or those who were wounded had done nothing to warrant it. They were going about their business. They were doing their jobs. They were flying to see family or to conduct business or to spend time with loved ones or going or returning from vacations. They didn't personally know their assassins. Those who attacked them had no particular human target in mind. They just wanted to kill as many people as possible. They didn't care who the victims were. All they had to do to warrant their killing and maiming, they wanted to target buildings or certain airplanes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC) And, terrorists attack government & military targets too, so you're right, it's thoroughly nebulous. My own sense of terrorism is "violence against individual rights" but this is not a mainstream view (I think a mugging is terrorism, but few will agree with me about this). But my sense of lots of reading mainstream sources about terrorism is that terrorists target both military, police, government and non-combatant civilian citizens too -- they don't care who they kill -- and that some sense of this belongs in the definition, somehow, along with the other stuff I mentioned.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PBS : To find fronteer cases does not make the sources disappear. Hoffman and Schmidt, to name two, give clear definitions. There exist something that is called terrorism and it is studied as a subject. Wikipedia is not the place to elaborate theories neither about existence of things nor about inexistence of others.


 * SlimVirgin : The problem is that "terrorism" is a word that is used in 3 diferent contexts. In the street, in the courts&diplomacy and in universities. I want the latter -academic- definition to be written while others -Tomwsulcer- wants the first.


 * And then we have Philip who wants it to be removed, erased, destroyed, etc.... He wants the article to say that "nobody knows what is terrorism". He keeps throwing cases and cases and supposedly we must keep analizing them. If in his opinion we fail, he wins -and if not he throws ten more cases. In my way of thinking, the mere fact that it is posible to write a full monography about the aplication of these definitions to the incidents, means that is relevant and names something that is clear and distinct.


 * Terrorism is a terrible thing and it is unfair that we substract to general public the knowledge of academics that give a tool to understand the orgins, dinamics and goals of this particular kind of criminals. If bad goes to worst, we can do an article with the title "Scientific approach to terrrorism" and keep this one as it is.--Igor21 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor21 I am able to write for myself. I do not need you to explain to others what my position is. I am not in favour of Wikipedia making up a synthesised definition of what terrorism is and I think that is exactly what the proposed new definition does: "Terrorism ... is often considered to be deliberate violence or the threat of violence directed at innocent non-combatants and governments to cause fear systematically to attract media attention for causes which may be political or ideological or religious and which are viewed as coercive." We have a whole article on the definition of terrorism and trying to sum it up in one sentence is not going to work. The current introduction which is far from perfect does not stray into editorialising a definition. -- PBS (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PBS, perhaps in other areas the "do not synthesize" requirement may apply, but not here. The purpose of trying to say what the mainstream view of "terrorism" is requires us to say what most people think. While there is much disagreement about what terrorism encompasses, there is considerable agreement about many of the things terrorism includes, and the mainstream view is that it includes issues such as violence, directed at non-combatants, intentional action (not accidental), usually designed to attract media attention, etc. This is how people and newspapers and academics see terrorism. It is a more accurate and closer reflection of what terrorism is. In my view, you've thrown all of this out, and elevated a non-definition which doesn't even use the word "violence" -- you've substituted your POV about the definition which is contrary to what most readers think. Most readers looking up "terrorism" on Wikipedia, when they see the current version, will shake their heads in disbelief, and think Wikipedia is missing the boat here. And what I'm asking you to do, PBS, is what happens on all other articles -- compromise about what we agree on about a definition; if you can't compromise, this page will have constant edit-warring.


 * BTW, the article "definition of terrorism" is another masterpiece in denying the existence of terrorism. The lead paragraf insists in the idea that terrorism is not posible to be distinguished from bar room brawls. I quotes a report for the american army that quotes Schimdt with the typical twist of not saying that Schmidt himself has a clear definition of terrorism. This trick of quoting Schmidt is very typical of terrorism deniers. It is sad because these authors say that "there are many definitions" as a complain and encourage to use the one they give. But then people takes only the part where they say that "there are many definitions" and ignore the one they offer. --Igor21 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision of lede paragraph
I know this has been probably discussed ad infinitum, but I think there is consensus (among the people writing on the talk page) that the current version is especially wishy-washy, and might consider another go at trying to define a really-tough-to-define word -- terrorism -- so here's a proposed rewrite of the lede:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorism, despite considerable disagreement about a precise definition, is often considered to be deliberate violence directed at innocent non-combatants to cause fear to attract media attention for political purposes for purposes of coercion. So an act which meets most or all of these criteria is often considered to be terrorism. There is considerable disagreement about whether the term can be applied to government or religious leaders and whether the term should be extended to include large-scale violence such as war. Further, the distinction between terrorism and crime is hard to specify. Some apply the term to systematic violence while others apply it to one-time acts of violence. A few consider unintentional violence as terrorism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is important to emphasize that the term is charged politically and emotionally and generally has strong negative connotations. Its meaning often depends on the ideology of the user and the context of its use. Studies have found more than one hundred definitions of the term. At present, there is no internationally agreed-upon definition. Governments have described opponents as terrorists to delegitimize them. Some suggest that the term terrorist is so fraught with conceptual problems that a better term would be violent non-state actor. Terrorism has a long history and has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, criminals, and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So, wondering what people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Another way to go about it is to break down pieces of the definition into arguable bits, and argue over each criteria. If we all feel certain criteria are part of the term, we can say so; if we disagree widely about a specific criteria, we can say that (in the final version) too. Here are some of the aspects which we can break down and examine. For each criteria, please add below each item whether you (1) strongly agree (2) somewhat agree (3) occasionally agree (4) disagree somewhat (5) disagree strongly. Or make a very brief comment.


 * Terrorism involves violence.
 * Strongly agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists act deliberately.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorism involves coercion.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists try to create fear.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists try to attract media attention.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists are motivated by a political purpose.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists can be governments.
 * Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists target innocents.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists strike armies/police but disregard innocents.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorism includes war.
 * Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorism is justifiable in some situations.
 * Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terrorists advance an ideological goal.
 * Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I want to say that I have read the books of Schmidt and Hoffman where these quotes appear. The reason for these authors to say that "there exist many definitions" is not -as here is continuously said- to imply that there is no way of defining. All the way round, after having say that, they offer clear definitions that gather perfeclty the semantic core.


 * So we must stop doing "primary source" and "original investigation" by inventing that there is no agreement on what is terrorism.


 * To say it loud and clear, the "hundreads" of definitions that exist, say mainly the same.


 * The definition I proposed above is the most accepted in the sources


 * "Terrorism is the use of violence by non-governametal entities to coerce societies of governements to behave in a certain way or to adopt certain policies. The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages.An intuitive way of look at the concept is to see as 'crimes of war' in absence of war.


 * The word "terrorism" has been used as a political insult and as a way to deslegitimize ideological antagonists. Academic research attend only to the nature of the incidents leaving aside the motivations and aims of the perpetrators"


 * This definition is widely used because allow to clasify political violence in five distinct kinds :


 * -Terrorism : (already defined)
 * -War : armies vs, armies
 * -Guerrilla or insurgency : non-governental entities trying by force to rule a geographic area
 * -Crimes of war done by armies to third parties
 * -Terrorism or state : done by armies and governements to their own population


 * It must be said that what is terrorism or not is the incident itself. E.g. 1 The Colombian FARC did participate in terrorist incidents as authors but to analize them as a terrorist organization is misleading. People who honestly is worried by libel never use the word "terrorist" to refer to people. It uses only to refer to incidents.


 * Finally, the strong connotations are not for the word but the actions described. But we must not intend to gather ell the wrong doings in a single word. E.g. carpet bombing an open city is a "crime of war" and to call it "terrorism" does not add anything except confusion.--Igor21 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you like a particular definition. There is much to be said for this definition. But I think others have different ideas about what the term "terrorism" means. I don't think there is nearly as much agreement as you think. For example, I think, personally, that terrorism includes war in some situations; for example, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, I saw that as an act of terrorism; but I know most people disagree with me about this. I've read Hoffman as well as other writers, and while I'll agree that a general sense of terrorism is that it involves "non-governmental entitites", I've seen enough situations in which people have used the term to refer to governments, or government leaders. There was speculation that president Bush acted like a terrorist by invading Iraq in 2003; while I didn't think of him in quite that way, there were people who described Bush as a terrorist, and these opinions were in mainstream print sources like the NY Times. So I think we have to respect that the term has multiple meanings. And it's our job to try to capture, as best we can, the different senses of the term.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to get at was this: if we break down the term into specific criteria, we might find considerable agreement about each one; or if we don't, we'll at least know that some criteria vary considerably. That's why I'm hoping people will put in their comments above, or react to my proposed revised definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying that I like a particular definition, would be more accurate to define my stance tby saying that I like a certain way of finding the correct definition.
 * In my opinion, the correct wikipedian way to do this is to source the definition from academic sources, not doing a poll.(Source properly not like is done now twisting the words to make appear that there is no definition)
 * There are in fact two separate meanings for the word. There is the vulgar meaning that is basically a kind of political insult that alludes to a purposely excessive violence and/or ilegitimate violence. The scientific definition does not make dependent an incident to qualified as "terrorist" on such slipery concepts as "excesive" or "legitimate" but only in the nature of the fact.
 * Your poll is original research but do not worry very much since this article is very prone to original research specially by people inventing that "there is no definition" and "terrorism is everything and is nothing".--Igor21 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. I'm a big believer in references and sourcing. Did you see how I added perhaps 40 or 50 references the other day? What I'm saying is that sources, as well, disagree. And the concept is hard to pin down. I ran into similar problems with the article about the word rights. But what I'm suggesting is trying to come to some kind of consensus among people who edit this page, based on sources, so this article is more helpful to people. Your contention "two separate meanings for the word" I disagree with. I have my own sense of what the term means, but all of us have to realize that there are many meanings.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I aplaud with both hands your believing in sources but let me insist that the consensus must be in which sources must be used. I propose Hoffman and Schmidt.
 * And yes, "terrorism" has many meanings as "lion" or "dog" or any normal word but in a enciclopedia we must get stuck to the scientific meanings and dismiss vulgar uses.--Igor21 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The main difference between Terrorism and Guerrilla is selection of targets. Terrorist are targeting civilians and guerrilla is targeting military personals and military buildings, facilities etc. But, sometime civilians (formally) can be consider as military. When? For example if President of US visit Afghanistan or Iraq (country or countries subject of Aggression or subject of Gross Violation of International Criminal Law in this case Crimes Against Peace as it is define during the Nirenberg Trial), he or she can be consider as legitimate and ultimate target since he or she represent Military of country which committed Aggression (or he or she is on position of ultimate military power). Any attack to mentioned (formal civilian) is consider as attack to Military not to civilian target, so furthermore is consider as Guerrilla. Guerrilla combatant are protected by Geneva Convection ref {http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNUY} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgius2010 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Section break (easier editing) but continuation of discussion
But is there any consensus among these different views? I'm in favor of including academic stuff in here as well as the street. Is there any consensus? Is there some common ground that we can all agree on?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean with Philip Baird Shearer? It is dificult to agree with someone whose only goal is to state that there is nothing particular called terrorism and that every incident -including bar room brawls- can be called as such.


 * Again Igor21 you have put words into my mouth please stop it. I did not say that a bar room brawl can be called terrorism, what I wrote was "rv to last version by GirasoleDE. A bar room brawl often has many of the characteristics which the change to the lead implies defines terrorism". -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Going back to the most recent synthesis: ""Terrorism ... is often considered to be deliberate violence or the threat of violence directed at innocent non-combatants and governments to cause fear systematically to attract media attention for causes which may be political or ideological or religious and which are viewed as coercive." During the most recent troubles there were Northern Ireland Loyalist paramilitaries who targeted members of the IRA (so not directed at the British Government). But members of the IRA were difficult targets to find and kill, so they also targeted, members of Sinn Féin, and those like the Shankill Butchers, people walking in Catholic areas. While this definition would clearly cover people walking in Catholic areas, would it cover the assassination of Pat Finucane? Also does it cover the killing of Billy Wright by the INLA? The British Government clearly thought so as all such killings were covered by the amnesty in the Good Friday agreement.


 * I think both definitions, or both syntheses as you say, would cover these cases you've mentioned, such as Shankill Butchers, the murder of Pat Finucane, and the targeting of Sinn Fein and Billy Wright. I agree terrorism is complex. And I think there are cases in which we'll come across an example which feels like terrorism but which won't exactly fit in the definition. So I don't think we or anybody can ever craft a tight definition. That is why I think a good description of the term would allow some leeway; for example, I think terrorism is usually done to attract media attention, but not always; and you've mentioned instances in which paramilitary people were targeted -- clearly they weren't innocent and clearly they weren't government officials. It's like this: as more and more of these criteria are met, then the likelihood that a certain act will be perceived as terrorism increases.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But look at the current definition once again: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. My problem is: does this do a good job of describing what terrorism is? For me, the systematic criterion is similar to the media attention criterion -- it's often the case that the violence is systematic, but not necessarily; the 9/11 attacks were a one-time deal, not a systematic occurrence like the Troubles in Northern Ireland. And, in my view, the term coercion is not the best descriptor, but is one of the descriptors. The definition continues: At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Well, I have problems here too -- contrasting ideological goal vs lone attack doesn't seem right. And I agree about your problem with the line about political effectiveness -- that is, sometimes terrorism IS politically effective.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But what I'm thinking is that some compromise is still possible which better describes terrorism, since in my view, the current definition doesn't do a good job of describing what most mainstream writers (newspapers, journalists, academics, military experts etc) see as terrorism. That is, I think we can do better; I think readers come across this definition which says very little, and scratch their heads: terrorism = systematic coercion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw my personal take on terrorism is highly at odds with the mainstream view; my sense is "terrorism is violence against individual rights" but I've found few people to agree with me about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion much of this article does not in any way begin to cover the complexities of "terrorism" in conflicts like that of the long troubles in Ireland, it is written from a single perspective which is similar to that taken by the Great Powers over the Martens Clause, rather than presenting terrorism as the complex issue it is. Take for example this statement in the current article "The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness." Well the IRA did and it was politically effective not once but twice, first securing the Irish Free State and later the Good Friday Agreement. So how does the author of that conclusion come to that conclusion? It seems to me that he did that by being selective in his use of examples. "Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives" This is not an accurate summary of a long article. I could go on -- as that only comments on two sentences in the second paragraph of the article -- but I won't. -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one way to unlock this is to distinguish the three levels of language. PBS for his allegations -apart from his fronteer cases- normally alludes to official or diplomatic statement so perhpas he can write the part where is said that each country consideres people terrorist or not depending on the conflict. You can write that any awful violence directed against common people is terrorism and I can summarize the academic definition. For me is rather bizarre since I do not see why is not done in similar cases but can be a way to stop hindering to public opinion the fact that terrorism is something clear and distinct.--Igor21 (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor, wondering exactly what your sense of the academic definition of terrorism is? Please specify it. Maybe if we can get your sense, PBS's sense, my sense, and perhaps SlimVirgin's sense, we can have a starting point for trying to reach some kind of compromise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I made my proposal above, ages ago.--Igor21 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor I couldn't find it above. Is it archived?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, Tomwslucer. Here is :


 * "Terrorism is the use of violence by non-governemetal entities to coerce societies or governements to behave in a certain way or to adopt certain policies. The difference with insurgency/guerrilla is that the terrorist does not try to liberate any territory with his actions but uses violence as a way to send messages.An intuitive way of look at the concept is to see as 'crimes of war' in absence of war."


 * I also owe you an apology because perhaps your aproach by concepts is easier for consensus. So coming back to you own comments above I would say that for me the key concepts are "non-governemental", "violence", "propaganda" and "politics".


 * Igor I'm in agreement with you that terrorism is about violence. Sometimes, I feel, that governmental organizations can act like terrorists, but I realize this whole view is controversial. For example, I think of Hitler as a terrorist (although few others describe him this way.) But I think most people see terrorists as non-governmental actors. Propaganda? I'm less sure about that. "Political" purpose -- I see this as usually one of the goals of terrorists (although it can sometimes be religious, or ideological as well).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In reality all this debate is distorted because the problem of Schmidt or Hoffman is that they can see terrorism as something clear and distinct. They try to induce a definition and they check this definition against the idea they have. When the terrorism deniers use their quotes they create the sensation that the dificulty is in the concept, when it is only in the definition.


 * The dificulty in the definition comes from the fact that some organizations practice diferent tactics being terrorism one of them. The very easy solution is to qualify as terrorism each incident alone. Of course when we find an organization that only uses this tactic we can call it terrorist but if not, we do not qualify it and full stop.--Igor21 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PBS : I also apologize to you since I did not see your post. Your are right. The phrase "The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness." is utter nonsense and contradicts Hoffman main statement that the success of Irgun fueled terrorism for 50 years.
 * Regarding your cases, if a civilian kills another civilian by political reasons that is terrorism. You must see political violence divided in five : war, guerrilla/insurgency, terrorism, state terrorism and crimes of war. I know you have an idea about IRA buy I cannot grasp which is. IRA tried to adopt a military pose and tries to act as a governement with liberated areas as guerrillas do. However many of the incidents perpetrated by them can only be qualified as terrorism as many of the RUC actions were state terrorism or state sponsored terrorism in other cases. --Igor21 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

correction of definition
Terrorism can't be as it is presented in this article define as systematic us of terror. Terror is different form of violence. So we need to distinguish term of Terrorism from Terror and Terrorism from Guerrilla WarfareGeorgius2010 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC).
 * How? Governments, scholars, newshounds, activists of many types all squabble over what terrorism is and is not.-  Sinneed  17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sinneed. Do we have any on Net definition of Terrorism, Terror and Guerrilla? Many scholars make no difference between those three terms. But there is difference. For example: Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble

Terror: 1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; ref  Georgius2010 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Georgius, the definition of terrorism is indeed a subject that provokes a lot of discussion here, but let's concentrate on that word. Etymology is not useful in defining meaning, and the article is not about terror (which obviously has well-known broader meanings) or about guerrilla. Barnabypage (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
I am proposing additional information be added to this article.

After the second sentence, in the third paragraph, stating "Studies have found over 100 definitions of terrorism", I think the following should be added:

"A common distinction in the literature is between terrorist lumpers and terrorist splitters. Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war.  Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain.  This distinction is not simply academic, as the various definitions of terrorism yield different implications for how best to combat it."

The source for this material is:

Abrahms, Max. "Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies." Cato. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/02/10/max-abrahms/lumpers-versus-splitters-a-pivotal-battle-in-the-field-of-terrorism-studies/.

I believe this contribution to the article will be useful because it helps illuminate the very cloudy term "terrorism." It is not a prescriptive statement, as it does not attempt to define terrorism as a tactic. Rather, it gives the reader an over-view of different perspectives regarding the definition of terrorism in the academic and counter-terrorism communities today. From here, the reader can make a more informed opinion as to what sort of acts constitute terrorism.

Uclabruin1 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Uclabruin1


 * I can't support adding this to the already-unwieldy lead. Unless there is an objection, I expect to rework the section I have re-headed "definition", adding this, as well as the many-definitions note.-  Sinneed  17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a very clear definition of terrorism that it should be used in the article. All this debate is based in ignorance and lack of reading in the participants.--Igor21 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to redact the incivil bit of that. There are a number of very clear definitions of terrorism -  Sinneed  17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ No agreement  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious of this article
How does its purpose differ from Definition of terrorism? Why are there 2? If there should be 2, I think a hat note at the top here, instead of just the section-link and wiklink in the lead would be more appropriate. I certainly haven't looked at these enough to propose anything like a merge, but this seems ripe for pov-forking and vandalism, splitting the attention of terrorism-interested editors who might otherwise be able to repair the damage.- Sinneed  21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism is only one parts of terrorism, there may not be a definitive definition, but as the article on the definition makes clear, there are things that all terrorism have in common, Bruce Hoffman quotes and cites Schmid in his book "Inside terrorism" and publishes a table composed by schmid from 109 definitions that schmid analysed. Here is the table with the top ten entries (Hoffman, Bruce (2006),Inside terrorism, Edition 2, Columbia University Press, 2006. ISBN 0231126999, 9780231126991. On page p. 34

So it is possible to find things common to many definitions of terrorism, even if only four of them are included in about half of all definitions. It also shows that some of the analysis on this page, for example in the first paragraph the article says "and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).", yet that is not sourced and the table suggests that it only appears in 17.5% of the 109 definitions.

Thinking about your proposal, I would suggest something else: Keep the articles definition of terrorism, State terrorism (or minor moves to definitions of terrorism and/or terrorism (state)), and move this page to Terrorism (non-state), then we create a new disambiguation page, or set index page, for Terrorism. Such a page could also link to articles like history of terrorism. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have extensively shown that to use Hoffman and Schmidt to support PBS theories -that there is not a consensus among scholars on the defintion of "terrorism"- is preposterous and purposely misleading. Hoffman and Schmidt discuss wording but have a very clear idea of what terrorism is.


 * The reason for the other article to exist is to create confusion and sugest that to define terrorism is so dificult that needs a special article. Some people here do not want a certain group to be qualified as terrorist so use the tactic of the squid by throwing ink to blur de concept.


 * I am really tired since PBS quotes Hoffman out of context and when you show him what Hoffman really says, then he starts saying that Hofmman is only "one of many". You can see the begining of the process in this very page. I sugest that everybody reads Hoffman and Schmidt to avoid being mislead by people who abuses of these authors by taking their quotes out of context.--Igor21 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor21 I use the IRA as an example, because, thanks to the systemic bias of Wikipedia, many editors, particularly Americans, can for cultural reasons understand examples of why the IRA can be seen in more than one light, in a way that many American find difficult to do when the attacks on America and Americans. This is not just at an emotional level, but also covers the whole American legal concept of "the political offense exception" as used by the defence during the Quinn v. Robinson case (see 783 F.2d 776, 54 USLW 2449 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. William Joseph QUINN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Glen ROBINSON, United States Marshal For the Northern District of California, Respondent-Appellant). A concept, a cynic could be tempted to say, has become rather unfashionable in America since 9/11. So please stop assuming ulterior motive to my reason giving these examples. I use the examples to show why Wikipedia should not develop a synthetic definition of terrorism. -- PBS (talk)


 * The 2 articles have different scopes and should be kept. Currently, definition of terrorism contains an objective list of the various legal and accademic definitions of terrorism. PBS' idea of renamimg it definitions of terrorism (in the plural) is a good one. The Terrorism article is more problematic.  In my view, Terrorism contains to much WP:OR.-- Bonifacius  14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bonifacius VIII : Would you agree to use Hoffman and Schmidt as main sources and write their definition in the led paragraph of "terrorism" and put the doubts in the second?--Igor21 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor21 do you have a reliable source that claims that they are the main sources for definitions? Why pick their definitions over those of other people, national laws and international organisations? Is it not better to state that at present there the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism, but that there are some common traits that many definitions of terrorism contain? -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear PBS, as you know, I have suggested using Vallis et all, p. 7, in the lead of the definition of terrorism article. I think it could be helpful also in this one, since it is a most fair, objective description of the situation you describe in your previous posts. I'm transcribing it again for the benefit of those editors that might not be familiar with it:


 * ""Most of the formal definitions of terrorism have some common characteristics: a fundamental motive to make political/societal changes; the use of violence or illegal force; attacks on civilian targets by “nonstate”/”Subnational actors”; and the goal of affecting society (Cronin 2002; Martin 2003). This finding is reflected in Blee’s (2005) listing of three components of terrorism:
 * 1)	Acts or threats of violence;
 * 2)	The communication of fear to an audience beyond the immediate victim, and;
 * 3)	Political, economic, or religious aims by the perpetrator(s).""


 * Cheers! -- Bonifacius 17:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PBS : You have been using Hoffman and Schmidt for years because you know their position in the academic scholarship. While you accepted the status, you kept hiding the real opinions of these authors.


 * Now that I have unveiled the real stance of these authors about the definition of terrorism, you doubt of their status.


 * So your idea is that Hoffman is only usable when it is allowed to you to distort his position??


 * For you, the importance of Hoffman is linked to the tolerance in Wikipedia to misquoting him??


 * How can be Hoffman irrelevant when their true ideas are stated and very relevant when out of context quotes mislead the reader??


 * Hoffman is the most respected scholar in the field and he do not support your OR about "terrorism is everything and terrorism is nothing".--Igor21 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor21, please see my comment above made at 12:11 on 27 February 2010. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bonifacius, the definition that you have quoted is indirectly critised elsewhere in the paper. Where they talk about undeveloped methodology. In this case they construct a list of definitions, with out any apparent objective methodology behind the construction -- e.g. using an independent survey method (a selection criteria from a set of data from empirical observation (such as constructing a list from "all the definitions published in International Terrorism Today over the last five years" (or whatever) and then drawing conclusions from that list. In most sciences to construct a list as they have done and then try to draw conclusions from it would not be taken seriously.
 * Overall I think the paper is very interesting but it show a very strong American bias. For example it is talking about "New Terrorism" -- go tell that to the Russians who seem to be fighting a group engaged in "Old [secessionist] terrorism". and I think this quote is indicative of the whole paper:


 * however to adapt to the environment pressures of the "War on Terror", terrorists have begun to employ more covert and deceptive target choice strategies. Borum (2004) revealed in his report that terrorists groups such as Al Quaeda have adapted such a strategy by selecting Western targets and interests on foreign soil rather than the US, for example the Bali bombings of 2002.


 * So Madrid (bombed in 2004) and London (bombed in 2005) are not part of the West but "foreign soil". In the case of Bali, Madrid and London the bombers all chose to select target within the national boarders of the country from which they came, so I am not sure with hindsight that Borum's analysis is correct and the paragraph is defiantly American centric. BTW some of the other analysis of "Al Quaeda" does not take into account the number of Brits (and people based in Britain) involved in incidents, unless one argues that Britain is a third word country with an oppressive regime, a popular sentiment in Britain at the moment! -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here you can see PBS doing original research (OR). He does not like the souce proposed by Bonifacious so he starts editoralizing about it.


 * PBS : The question stands : why you used Hoffman again and again and now that the truth about his writings has been shown you dismiss him?--Igor21 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between talking about sources on the talk page if they are biased, if they are reliable etc, and placing editorial comment into an article. --PBS (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear PBS, its indeed true that Vallis article is not perfect and that it has biases. But the quote I proposed in fact summarizes the same stadistics that Hoffman produced - and that you quoted above. Vallis just says it in a more condensed form and, for that reason, I think it might be useful in the lead. The lead it is not supposed to be the last word, but just a summary.

Moreover, biases unavoidable. For example, we all like to quote Hoffman, but we must remember that for many years he was the director of the RAND Corporation, esentially a think tank of the US army and the American "hawks". In the US academic community, RAND is rather contentious. People could fairly question his findings on the basis of that association, and in fact, one could say that his writings have a certain defense oriented, hawkish tone. Cheers!-- Bonifacius 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite the same. Hoffman's table uses data from an analysis published in the 19888 and things may well have moved on since then, so more recent analysis might support the quote above, my major concern with it is that the quote you have included above appears to be based on no systematic analysis, and it includes "attacks on civilian targets by “nonstate”/”Subnational actors”" Yet that combination was not present in the table that Hoffman published. "attacks on civilian targets" was only present in 17.5% of the 109 1988 definitions, and "nonstate/Subnational actors" was not a category, either because it was in few definitions or it was not categorised for use in the table. -- PBS (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are more academic people that follows Hoffman's definition because they think it is more precise. To include definitions of the target in the definition of terrorism is not well seen by scholarship because it is an inespecific treat shared by many crimes.


 * So now the plan is to accept Hoffman's lists but not Hoffman's conclusions?


 * How is going to be explained that we use the begining of the chapter of his book and hide the end? (where he puts the emphasis and the reason why he wrote the chapter).


 * We only like his opinions when can help to hide the existence of accepted academic definitions?--Igor21 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if Vallis is not acceptable, what do we do now? Should we include two long quotes from Hoffman: one describing the existence of many definitions (we already have it in Definition of terrorism), and one with his own "tentative to synthetizise" a definition (the definition the Igor has been proposing for a long while)? -- Bonifacius 06:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Socially accepted forms of abuse and intimidation.
Certain nations, of which colombia and venezuela belong, have a long history of socially accepted forms of abuse and intimidation in business that have passed from the borderline of social control into the dark areas of psychological warfair and certain facets of what is considered terrorism. Acceptance of kidnapping, contracted killings, generalized creation of fear and intimidation for economic and political gains and goals.

When specific facets of defined mental illnesses (DSM IV) become commonly accepted behavior norms, then they cannot be taken in consideration for a diagnosis. Over exceptance, indulgence, of certain facets of terrorism by a state, for political and private economic goals, create a common and accepted social cultural behavior norm that is difficult to take in consideration for a diagnosis and definition of a terrorist nation.

What prevents many entities in these nations from taking concrete action, is the international communities use of the term terrorism as defining entities that use force of arms to counter established governments as terrorist. This creates a worldwide cultural and socially accepted use of that term to establish terrorist regimes in any nation through the intimidating factors related to the use of that term.

Any comments would be appreciated, a simple agree or disagree for added input would be sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractalhints (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Fractahints, it is true that societal acceptance of certain types of violence makes more difficult to combat it. It is not true, though, that the definitional problems around terrorism are the cause of violence in those countries or that it prevents societal action against violence, as you suggest in your last paragraph. In any case, wikipedia is not the place to discuss original research (see WP:NOR). If you really wish to pursue some of these innovative ideas further, may I suggest that you publish them first in an academic journal? Cheers! -- Bonifacius  17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Bonifacius, most honorable and esteemed follower of the ´panorama´ of world affairs. You must offcourse have noticed that many of the links provided in wikipedia are demised, dead, historicaly binned in the netherworld of the internet. Alas, eventually that happens to us all, even you, my dearest fellow of that certain style of academic journalism that only exists in your own mind as it only exists in the minds of like fellow followers. Thus far, wikipedia could easily be linked to terrorism and psychological warfair techniques as per any other site of the same sort. This is a discussion of improvements, not a discussing concerning your own stoolie factors by who knows what criminal or terrorist organisation. In other words, stick to the issues instead of panning for compliments. Wikipedia is not a compendium of world knowledge conglomerated through a few individuals with spare time and no input into what you consider original research, expert opinion, and acadamic spellibilia. Perhaps this statement is politically incorrect, but so are a lot of statements within wikipedia. Learning to read would be a good recommendation(Fractalhints (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC))

Edit Request
Considering the noted objections to including additional material to the introduction, I think that Sinneed's suggestion to include the additional information I had proposed (transcribed below) in the "Definitions" section, would be best:

"A common distinction in the literature is between terrorist lumpers and terrorist splitters. Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war. Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain. This distinction is not simply academic, as the various definitions of terrorism yield different implications for how best to combat it."

The source for this material is:

Abrahms, Max. "Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies." Cato. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/02/10/max-abrahms/lumpers-versus-splitters-a-pivotal-battle-in-the-field-of-terrorism-studies/.

I believe this contribution to the article will be useful because it will help inform the reader as to the definition of the term "terrorism," and show how the specific definition of terrorism affects counter-terrorism policy. As per Sinneed's suggestion, I think it should be included under the first line of the "Definitions" section:

"Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy, and are often developed to serve it."

Thank you so much, and I welcome any other suggestions.
 * That point of view is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Including it would violate WP:UNDUE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It actually is notable -if you think about it, how terrorism is defined makes a huge impact on how to combat it, and therefore relates to the previous line on counter-terrorism policy. When practitioners define terrorism as including guerilla warfare against military targets, evidence shows terrorism works wonderfully as a coercive tactic -as noted by Bin Laden vis-a-vis the Afghan-Soviet war. This kind of a message, that terrorism "works", draws in new recruits, and convinces governments they're in a losing war against extremists. If terrorism is defined as specifically targeting civilians, then the opposite is true: it rarely works as a coercive tactic, with the important implication that it can be defeated. I think this should go in the article, as we're talking about the relationship between the definition of terrorism and counter-terrorism policy. This inclusion directly relates to it.

Thulfiqar19 (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)thulfiqar19


 * wp:notability is not related to importance or how an edit relates to the article. Once the press covers it and we see and can sum up what the press says, it may merit inclusion.- Sinneed  13:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The issue on whether this content violates WP:UNDUE should be resolved here on the talk page before the content is added. Celestra (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excesive further reading
Pursuant to WP manual of style, I have moved the further reading section here,:

Further reading
 * Bockstette, Carsten: "Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic Communication Management Techniques" George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies Occasional Paper Series, Volume 20, Dezember 2008, ISSN 1863-6039, pp. 1–28
 * Köchler, Hans (ed.), Terrorism and National Liberation. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Question of Terrorism. Frankfurt a. M./Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1988, ISBN 3-8204-1217-4
 * Köchler, Hans. Manila Lectures 2002. Terrorism and the Quest for a Just World Order. Quezon City (Manila): FSJ Book World, 2002, ISBN 0-9710791-2-9
 * Laqueur, Walter. No End to War - Terrorism in the 21st century, New York, 2003, ISBN 0-8264-1435-4
 * Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner, eds. Terrorism : essential primary sources. Thomson Gale, 2006. ISBN 9781414406213 Library of Congress. Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms LC Control Number: 2005024002.
 * Lewis, Jeff, Language Wars: The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and Political Violence, Pluto Books, London, 2005.
 * Lieberman, David M. Sorting the revolutionary from the terrorist: The delicate application of the "Political Offense" exception in U.S. extradition case, Stanford Law Review, Volume 59, Issue 1, 2006, pp. 181–211
 * Matovic, Violeta, Suicide Bombers Who's Next, Belgrade, The National Counter Terrorism Committee, ISBN 978-86-908309-2-3
 * Sunga, Lyal S., US Anti-Terrorism Policy and Asia’s Options, in Johannen, Smith and Gomez, (eds.) September 11 & Political Freedoms: Asian Perspectives (Select) (2002) 242–264.
 * Arno Tausch 'Against Islamophobia. Quantitative analyses of global terrorism, world political cycles and center periphery structures' Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers (for info: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/), 2007
 * Charles Tilly, Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists in Sociological Theory (2004) 22, 5-13 online
 * Schmid, Alex (Ed.), UN Forum on Crime and Society. Special Issue on Terrorism. 2004, Vol 4:1/2.
 * Schmid, Alex (Ed.), UN Forum on Crime and Society. Special Issue on Terrorism. 2004, Vol 4:1/2.

-- Bonifacius 16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excesive external links
Pursuant to WP manual of style,I have moved the excesive external links here:

Papers and articles on global terrorism
 * "Al Qaeda Today: The New Face of the Global Jihad," by Marlena Telvick, PBS Frontline, January 2005. Former CIA caseworker Dr. Marc Sageman explains how Al Qaeda has evolved from an operational organization into a larger social movement, and the implications for U.S. counterterror efforts.
 * Bockstette, Carsten: "Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic Communication Management Techniques" George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies Occasional Paper Series, Volume 20, Dezember 2008, ISSN 1863-6039, pp. 1–28
 * Audrey Kurth Cronin, "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism," International Security, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Winter 2002/03), pp. 30–58.
 * – Special Report on Terrorism in the European Union on 'Analyzing EU'
 * Stathis N. Kalyvas, The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil Wars (2004) in Journal of Ethics 8:1, 97–138.
 * Prof. Troy Duster "From Theatre of War to Terrorism"
 * Syed Ubaidur Rahman "Thousands of Muslims gather to denounce terrorism"
 * Hans Köchler, The United Nations, the International Rule of Law and Terrorism. Supreme Court of the Philippines, Centenary Lecture (2002)
 * Hans Köchler, The United Nations and International Terrorism. Challenges to Collective Security (2002)
 * GTD, successor to the Terrorism Knowledge Base
 * Global War on Terrorism / Strategic Studies Institute
 * Terrorism Research Center – Terrorism research site started in 1996.
 * Terror Finance Blog – Multi-expert website dealing with terrorism finance issues.
 * Terrorism Research – International Terrorism and Security Research
 * Scale invariance in global terrorism
 * Security News Line: Global Terrorism and Counter-terrorism www.debriefed.org
 * The Evolution of Terrorism in 2005. A statistical assessment An article by Rik Coolsaet and Teun Van de Voorde, University of Ghent
 * Terrorism/Anti-terrorism – An analysis on the causes and uses of terrorism
 * [] "Al Qaeda's New Front," PBS "Frontline" January 2005. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the locus of the investigation quickly shifted to Europe and the network of radical Islamic jihadis who are part of "Eurabia," the continent's expanding Muslim communities. Since 9/11 America has been spared what authorities feared and expected: a second wave of attacks. Instead Europe, once a logistical base for Islamic radicals and a safe haven, has itself become the target.
 * Teaching Terrorism and Counterterrorism with lesson plans, bibliographies, resources; from US Military Academy
 * Germany's contribution to the fight against global terrorism
 * Quantitative World System Studies Contradict Current Islamophobia: World Political Cycles, Global Terrorism, and World Development. Arno Tausch, Innsbruck University – Faculty of Political Science and Sociology – Department of Political Science, Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1 & 2, Spring-Summer 2007, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976864
 * The Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center
 * Information Terrorism: Can You Trust Your Toaster?

Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States  Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel
 * Library of Congress – Federal Research Division The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism. by Robert L. Worden, Ph.D.
 * Leonard Peikoff on Terrorism This article was published in the New York Times on October 2, 2001.
 * Ivan Arreguín-Toft, "Tunnel at the End of the Light: A Critique of U.S. Counter-terrorist Grand Strategy,"Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2002), pp. 549–563.
 * The Terrorism Index – Terrorism "scorecard" from Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress
 * Most Wanted Terrorists- Rewards for Justice
 * Law, Terrorism and Homeland Security. A collection of articles.
 * "The Security Constitution," UCLA Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 29, 2005
 * The Enemy Within, PBS Frontline October 2006
 * Terrorist Network Operating Openly In The United States by Jane Franklin, ZNET, April 30, 2005
 * Ariel Merari, "Terrorism as a Strategy in Insurgency," Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Winter 1993), pp. 213–251.
 * Israel Global Terror desk
 * Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000
 * of Terrorist Analysis of Terrorist

Other
 * Terrorism Resources from UCB Libraries GovPubs
 * START National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
 * The European Union counterterrorism policy before and after the 9/11 attacks
 * Video: Dr Adam Dolnik: What makes a terrorist? A Lowy Institute lecture on SlowTV, August 2008
 * About the Qassam-sderot media center
 * Paradise Poisoned: Learning About Conflict, Development and Terrorism from Sri Lanka's Civil Wars by John M. Richardson
 * Ontologies of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism
 * The Supreme Court of India adopted Alex P. Schmid's definition of terrorism in a 2003 ruling (Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar), "defin&#91;ing&#93; acts of terrorism veritably as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes."
 * Jack Goody What is a terrorist? Published in: journal History and Anthropology, Volume 13, Issue 2 2002, pages 139–142 DOI: 10.1080/0275720022000001219
 * Schmid and Jongman (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 use 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".. For more detailed information, see: Schmid, Jongman et al. Political terrorism: a new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories, and literature. Amsterdam: North Holland, Transaction Books, 1988. ISBN 1412804698
 * Staff. U.S. Terrorism in the Americas an Encyclopedia "on violence promoted, supported and carried out by both the U.S. government and its servants in Latin America
 * "Terror on the Streets of New York, Take One" by David Wallace-Wells, Newsweek, February 16, 2009
 * "Terror on the Streets of New York, Take One" by David Wallace-Wells, Newsweek, February 16, 2009

-- Bonifacius 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice cleanup job! I've seen this article several times when cleaning up linkfarms and I've always been too afraid to touch it, considering the length of the section and the contentiousness of the subject matter.  Them  From  Space  09:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Addition
I'd like to establish consensus on an addition to the terrorism article that I'm proposing; its transcribed below:

"A common distinction in the literature is between terrorist lumpers and terrorist splitters. Lumpers define terrorism broadly, brooking no distinction between this tactic and guerrilla warfare or civil war. Terrorist splitters, by contrast, define terrorism narrowly, as the select use of violence against civilians for putative political gain. This distinction is not simply academic, as the various definitions of terrorism yield different implications for how best to combat it."

The source for this material is:

Abrahms, Max. "Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies." Cato. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/02/10/max-abrahms/lumpers-versus-splitters-a-pivotal-battle-in-the-field-of-terrorism-studies/.

I think it should be included under the first line of the "Definitions" section:

"Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy, and are often developed to serve it."

This is a useful contribution for a few reasons. First, it illuminates the definition of terrorism, and demonstrates the link between the specific definition of the phenomena, and counter-terrorism policy -which is directly related to previous information in the "definitions" section. This is really on the cutting edge of terrorism studies -and it's receiving increasing coverage in different news portals and blogs:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/02/10/max-abrahms/lumpers-versus-splitters-a-pivotal-battle-in-the-field-of-terrorism-studies/

http://sec.todaysthv.com/article/07HI7J450PaGc

http://1click.indiatimes.com/article/07HI7J450PaGc?q=Al-Qaeda

Also, the "lumpers" vs "splitters" distinction is being spread to other analyses:

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/11/is-obama-a-middle-east-%E2%80%98splitter%E2%80%99/

Last, I think it emphasizes the importance of a nuanced understanding of the definition of terrorism. Without it, we can neither identify it, nor combat it.

I welcome any suggestions.

94.249.49.208 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Uclabruin1


 * Sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that this disctiontion illuminates the discussion. In any case, it would only apply to some academic definitions of terrorism and not the the legal ones.-- Bonifacius  14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a good inclusion. Maybe it could be reworded to be less academic, and include more info on policy implications, because it does actually apply to the legal definition. Think about it -if terrorism is defined to include attacks on military targets, then what do you call the perpetrators of an operation against an occupying army? "Soldiers"? -Clearly not. Enemy combatants? -Quite controversial, especially regarding the Geneva Convention. How do you treat them? Are they to be tried in civilian or military courts? What are the rules of engagement? These are just of few of the legal questions that arise from this distinction.

Basically, are they criminals, or are they soldiers? This is an important distinction with clear legal implications if you ask me. As such it seems to at least get the reader thinking about how to best define the phenomena, and the consequences that may arise from it.

Adam smith31 (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Adam_Smith31


 * The suggested addition does not make legal distiction, it just seeks to clasify the existing accademic definitions. All the definitions included in international treaties distinguish situations of peace from those of armed conflcits. (see definition of terrorism and, in particular, the terrorist Bombings convention ). From a technical, legal point of view, civilians who commit violent acts against the military in situations governed by international humanitarian law (such as an occupation) are - and this is a term of art - "civilians who have forefeithed their protected status". They are not entitled to the treatment prisioners of war, but they may be tried as war criminals (see e.g. art 45.3 and 51.3 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and art. 4 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). In fact, the law on this matter is not as obscure as some might think.  In any case, this is an article on terrorism; it might not the place to discuss technical legal matters regarding the application of International humanitarian law. -- Bonifacius  06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bonifacius, those are good points vis-a-vis the legal distinctions made by the proposed addition, or for that matter, the lack thereof. But what's the problem with an academic distinction? It's helpful. Maybe this could go in the definitions segment you had referenced?

Regarding your first suggestion, it seemed your issue was that the proposed addition didn't make a legal distinction, and was purely academic. In your next comment, you make the point that it still doesn't make a legal distinction -regardless of adam_smith31's position- and that even if it did, legal minutae don't belong in this general information article anyway. So I'm confused -what is your position on it exactly? Is it a problem because it doesn't make a legal distinction (which you don't think should go in the article), or is it a problem because its an academic definition? (if it can't be legal, and can't be academic, what can it be?)

I say splice it in the "definitions" portion.

Thulfiqar19 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)thulfiqar19


 * Ditto Thulfiqar, an academic distinction deserves just as much merit and attention as one generated from other sources. I agree it should be inserted it in definition of terrorism, as referenced by Bonifacius. Where though?

Nasim23 (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Nasim23


 * If you really insist, I would say under definition of terrorism after the quotation from Vallis. Cheers!-- Bonifacius 11:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be excellent. Any other suggestions or ideas? I'm looking to build a decent consensus before I insert the edit suggest templet. Sineed? Any objections?

Thanks so much. 79.173.202.75 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Uclabruin1


 * Be WP:Bold, do not add a suggestion template. If we do not like what you write, we will change it.  -- Bonifacius  22:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it.", this does not apply to definition of terrorism -- PBS (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced
The statement attributed to Paul Watson is unsourced;and the encyclopedia sentence the quote is in mixes a non-quoted statement and a quote which when conjoined in this fashion constitute an admission of terrorism that is not made in the quoted part. Not very encyclopedic. I am obligated to remove (soon) the entire anecdote until it is repaired, if I can. Netrapt (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Psychodynamics of terrorism
Could somebody please review the following article of mine to see if it qualifies in the 'external links' section, and please insert it there. http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/terror.htm Matswin (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not qualify, per WP:ELNO #11. And please add new conversations at the bottom of the talk page (See WP:TOPPOST) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But one can make exception to the "recognized authority" criterion according to this: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. If this is the case, then it needn't be written by a recognized authority (see #11). I think my article is thought-provoking.Matswin (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Urban Terrorism
While working on some orphaned articles I came across an article for Urban Terrorism. It was in really bad shape and so I tagged it with "multiple problems."

I think that Urban Terrorism should remain its own page since it is a specific type of terrorism (9/11 attacks, '93 WTC bombing, subway bombing in London, etc.) but I think it should also have an included section in this article with a link to the main article. --cleddy89 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add new discussions to the bottom of the talk page. See WP:TOPPOST. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Mass Media update
Interesting to see is this magazine publication. I wonder, Why is the publication in English? Is this a scare tactic? What are some comments on this article? http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/10/12/mideast.jihadi.magazine/index.html Vonabisz (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism
Right-wing terrorism is currently a re-direct to this page. However the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, which I will create. TFD (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First you will have to define what right wing means. This is extremely tricky in many situations. Take for example the troubles in Northern Ireland. The IRA split in 1969 to for the Provisional IRA and the rump became known as the Official IRA. Clearly the OIRA were left wing (they sort of emphasised socialism over nationalism) but the Provisionals who (sort of) emphasised nationalism over socialism more right wing than the Officials? The UDF a reaction against the IRA, is it right wing? It draws its support from the working classes of Northern Ireland, and it emphasises loyalty to the crown, but their distrust of the Crown's ministers is almost as great as that of the IRA.


 * The point I am raising is that most terrorism has its roots in ethnic/nationalistic struggles or religious struggles, neither fit comfortably in the paradigm of right left ideology. were the Jesuits right or left wing subversives and where the Papal bull against Elizabeth inciting left wing or right wing assassination attempts? What about fatwa on Salman Rushdie was that left wing or right wing terrorism (he must have been frightened to agree to go into hiding)?


 * The opposition who label a groups terrorist, often also label them left or right wing depending on the expediency of the time. For example the Nationalist government in South Africa labelled the ANC a communist organisation, and the communists during the Cold War did support it. But the actions of the ANC since coming to power hardly makes them communist (much to the disappointment of many of their supporters). If you look at the mirror of the proposed article Left-wing terrorism you will see on the talk page that the article had exactly the same sort of problems you will face.


 * --PBS (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already started the article. While you are correct that most terrorism has its roots in ethnic/nationalistic or religious struggles, those types of terrorism is included under the categories of "nationalist terrorism" and "religious terrorism".  Here is a link to a standard typology used.  TFD (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The link you have give above is an interesting one but it must have been written by an American as the author has a real American bias with the use of the term liberal! At least one of the sources you have used in your new article does not seem to have a clue what skinheads or hooligans are in Britain, they may be antisocial, but they are not terrorists (as defined by the British Government). I think your creation of the new article is premature and you should see if there is any support for the article before developing it further. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While the link does have a U.S. emphasis, the typology is standard, and is basically the same as the one used in The new dimension of international terrorism, which is European. Of course skinheads and hooligans are not terrorists, but most right-wing terrorists come from that mileu, e.g., Combat 18.  In the same sense religious people are not terrorists, but "religious terrorists" are typically religious.  TFD (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)