Talk:Violent non-state actor

NPOV Issues
NPOV?: "Hamas for instance might be viewed by many as freedom fighters, but their strategy is pretty much terrorist, and their means of existence closely linked with mafia-like practice." (Unsigned comment)

Also there are multiple references to EZLN from Mexico as being a violent political revolutionary group, but it is well documented that they ceased all military operations soon after their initial rebellion. They still carry guns but don't use them (some sort of existentialist revolutionary tactic, I don't know) so it doesn't seem right to classify them as a VNSA.

FARC and ELN in Colombia on the other hand are definitely VNSA, and are good examples of a blurred distinction between political motivation and criminal motivation. For right now though I'm just removing references to EZLN. spokmage 79.147.100.222 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Page move
I am moving the page because the VNSA is an abbreviation is also used by other organizations and which come first when doing a Google search that excludes Wikipedia. Eg the Visiting Nurse Service and Affiliates,Virginia Nursing Students’ Association and the "Virtual Network Security Analyzer". --PBS (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Earliest usage
Using Google searches. The earliest references I could find for the term "Violent non-state actor" were two publications in 2002. There had been mention of Non-state actors and violence before that date but none which used the specific phrase.  The first book that Google Books returns is Non-state threats and future wars by Robert J. Bunker, Routledge, 2003. p. 76
 * Non-state actors in Colombia: threats to the state and to the hemisphere, Author: Max G. Manwaring. Small Wars & Insurgencies, Volume 13, Issue 2 August 2002, pages 68 - 80 . DOI: 10.1080/09592310208559182
 * Lords of the Silk Route: Violent Non-State Actors in Central Asia TS Thomas, SD Kiser, 43rd volume in the Occasional Paper series of the U.S. Air Force Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). - 2002

This of course is all OR, but I think it is useful to mention it here on the talk page as it shows that the phrase is a relatively new one and does not have a long antecedence as do some terms like "insurgency". --PBS (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Time passes and the web grows. The earliest book now returned by a Google book search is: The earliest Google scholar return is one from 1957, one from 1970 and two from 1972. The 1957 paper is not available on the net for general access but it is cited by David R. Andersen in a paper called Foreign Policy Decision-Making and Violent Non-State Actors which was published in 2004, it is is likely that the phrase was used in this paper back then. One of the 1970 papers is accessible, so the phrase was in use in more than one journal by the early 1970s.
 * Ralph Miliband, Leo Panitch (1993). Real problems, false solutions p. 124

-- PBS (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Part three of the definition of terrorism
Terrorism: 1.) Intended to create fear (terror) among a broader public. 2.) A policy perpetrated for an ideological goal. 3.) Deliberate target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants /???

Number three is better expressed through the following statement

3.) The deliberate creation of collaterol damage for reasons of propaganda.

190.38.99.16 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Signed:(Fractalhints (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Part three of the definition of terrorism
The inexactness of the perpetuators (the unknown being a cause for fear), five points:

1.) ´Unidentified´ ´specific entities´ located in ´unspecified´ ´exact locations´.

2.) Are alleged to belong to a larger ´untouchable´ ´not clearly identified´ specific group with ´unidentified´ clearly demarked superior economic, military, intelligence and/or technological capacity above standard civilian level.

3.) That create fear (terror) among a broader public.

4.) Perpetuate their actions through a policy designed for an ideological goal.

5.) Deliberately create collaterol damage for reasons of propaganda.

Some psychology and sociology due the causes for fear and terror would be appreciated if those terms are used in the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.99.16 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Signed:(Fractalhints (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Definition of violent
Violence is forcefull compliance (ie: behavior modification techniques through physical and non-physical means) and acceptance for and of the purposes of the perpetrators.

Even though superposition of understandable language on top of other acoustical sounds is physically non-violent, psychologically, it is a violent intrusion by entities that attempt to impose their ´sayso´ onto other entities (heckling is a violent form of intrusion, so is sound blasting someones residence).

Bullying, paternal alienation, several other forms defined in the DSM IV (psychiatry), military training, are all forms that have one item in common, they are used by ´violent´ state and non-state actors to mold through force entities into compliance with a preset series of behavior norms of the perpetuators own design (in or out of function) (training).

190.38.99.16 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Signed:(Fractalhints (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Fixed some links, overhaul
Some of the links were dead, or semi-dead. Naval Postgraduate School links divert to the main NPS web page. I've added archive.org links where necessary, and cut out side trips through blogs that led to the real paper cited. All links now go someplace useful. --John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Overhauled beginning of article, with more cited quotes and cited distinctions between the various types of non-state actors. I'm tempted to delete the "Diagnostic dimensions" section as OR; there are no cites, and it reads like something from the DSM-III. --John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed Section "Relation to Terrorism"
It was, to quote, "Many people think that the wearing of facepaint is related to terrorism but it infact is not it is just a way to get more people to join the "juggalo family" and listen to ICP(Insane Clown Posse)."

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why I deleted this. 70.78.12.203 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Section called "Origin and motives" moved from the article
The collapsed text is a complete section that has been in the article un-sourced for more than two and a half years that is more than enough time for sources to be found. I have moved it here so that anyone who wants to can use it as the basis for a new cited section.

--PBS (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Chibli quote
This quote is taken entirely out of context, and from a book which not about non-violent state actors, but is a polemic about the environmental problems of civilization. I honestly am surprised to see this being used as a source here. As noted in the edit summary, cobbling together this line of reasoning by taking quotes out of context from unrelated sources is exactly synthesis. aprock (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed both the sources in the opening paragraph in detail and neither of them mention the military jargon 'violent non-state actor'. I've removed the entire paragraph as original research. aprock (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A search on Max Weber "Violent non-state actor" site:mil returns several pages that link to Weber. There is no hurry on this paragraph as it is not unreasonable and it helps explain to people where why the term is exists (think of someone who has no knowledge of what is meant by a "state" in the social sciences). It will take time to sort out suitable links to citations but there is nothing in what is written that is advancing a novel point of view. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim that unsourced synthesis should remain on the page and that "there is no hurry" to address the issue because you personally find the synthesis "not unreasonable" clearly goes against WP:NOR, one of the core policies. I'll ask that you revert yourself until appropriate sourcing is provided.  In this case, "there is no hurry" to obviate core policies. aprock (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief. The search returns no results: No results found for Max Weber "Violent non-state actor" site:mil..  aprock (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I review the sources, the more I'm convinced this article does not meet WP:GNG requirements. I'll spend some more time picking through various search queries, but hopefully someone can come up with independent reliable secondary source which demonstrates general notability. aprock (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After having spent more time reviewing sources, this appears to be a term of art within the military, which is not particularly well used outside that arena. Based on the discussion above, I'll be removing the paragraph with the Chilbi quote as synthesis. aprock (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is term of art within the military, then the readers still needs to know why the term is used, and it is based around the concept that a state has a monopoly on violence within its territory. I do not see the sentences you have deleted as a WP:SYN because it is common currency within the literature. Here is a Google book search and a Google scholar search that returns the use the terms violent non-state actor and the monopoly of violence. A good example is this article State Actors in the 21st Century Security Environment by Querine Hanlon (2011, (He is dean of Academic Affairs at the College of International Security Affairs at National Defense University)). See for example Page 3:

"::For most of the 20th century, if a state existed, it was assumed to be legitimate. All states, by definition, were perceived as meeting the traditional criteria of ―statehood: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and a capacity to act internationally and to maintain a monopoly of force internally. (footnote 13"Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States defines states as follows: ―The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states. It implies that states possess complete or nearly complete control over their territories and a monopoly of violence within that territory"."


 * -- PBS (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Searches are not sources (most especially ones that return no results). If you can find a source that's relevant, by all means add it.  If you cannot find sources which discuss the topic in any way, linking the content because you feel it is "common currency" is indeed synthesis. It's worth noting that the source you quote does not discuss violent non-state actors, and only mentions "non-state actors" twice in passing. aprock (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many articles
Wikipedia has articles on: There's a lot of overlap. Some mergers may be desirable. John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Violent non-state actor
 * Non-state actor
 * Monopoly on violence
 * Westphalian sovereignty
 * Insurgency
 * Counter-insurgency


 * I strongly disagree that most of these should be merged. The only place I can see overlap is between Weber's Monopoly on violence and the ideas of westphalian sovereignty, with the monopoly on force/violence being a section under the Westphalian state system or the like.  However, I don't see a reason for the merge.  There is plenty of information for each of these topics to be their own encyclopedia entry.  Bellicist (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Loudinsr (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed bibliography to improve the article:

Joey, "The Role of Non-state Actors in International Relations." The Role of Non-state Actors in International Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. .

MILANOVIC, MARKO. "State Responsibility for Acts of Non-State Actors: A Comment on Griebel and Plücken." Leiden Journal of International Law 22.2 (2009): 307-24. ProQuest. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.

Clapham, Andrew. "Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors in Conflict Situations." International Review of the Red Cross88.863 (2006): 491-523. ProQuest. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. Loudinsr (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition needs to refer to violence
The definition currently given is merely that of non-state actor (NSA); the topic here is "violent NSA", therefore violence needs to be added to the definition in the lead paragraph. As this is an American military term, do they use a working definition? Does it simply mean NSAs who commit violence, or is it wider e.g. including NSAs who condone or justify violence by others? – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Violent non-state actor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090301023230/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/mar/casebeerMar04.pdf to http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/mar/casebeerMar04.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090612035927/http://www.armed-groups.org:80/Default.aspx to http://www.armed-groups.org/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over sources
I would like to develop this page but the changes from 7 edits have been reverted because the reverter says they are not from RS. In my view all the content is attributable (and most of it is sourced directly), and it is NPOV and fair, so I suspect the reversions are hostile. If you have issues with the content, please discuss here before reverting. Thanks.

What do people think?

Fugitivedave (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I count as people so, your a sock, obviously. I'm seeing YouTube as a ref, not RS. Did I mention the socking part? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I only just learnt what a sock is by looking it up! I'm not that, and as I said I only use one account now. I carried that disputed source (youtube link) from another Wiki page and didn't check it - my bad. Are there any other sources you dispute? If so, I can check them.

Fugitivedave (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Added some more refs to deal with issue (weak sources before). Are any other sources dodgy, do you think?

Fugitivedave (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the section Description
As a new type of actor in international relations, VNSAs represent a departure from the traditional Westphalian sovereignty system of states in two ways: by providing an alternative to state governance; and by challenging the state's monopoly of violence.

Phil Williams stated in 2008 that in the 21st century, they "have become a pervasive challenge to nation-states".[4] Williams argues that VNSAs develop out of poor state governance but also contribute to the further undermining of governance by the state. He explains that when weak states are "unable to create or maintain the loyalty and allegiance of their populations", "individuals and groups typically revert to or develop alternative patterns of affiliation

The major problem with this section is recentism. It is like reading a statment from a teenager that their parent's never had sex because old people don't.

"As new type of actor" so for example there were no violent non-state actors during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the '45, Piracy in the Caribbean, the American War of Independence, the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, the Russian Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, Chinese Civil War the Second World War, the colonial wars fought by Britain and France post WWII, the Troubles, the proxy wars of the Cold War including Vietnam War and the Soviet–Afghan War to name just a few locations in time and history with VNSAs.

"Williams argues that VNSAs develop out of poor state governance" if foreigners are in charge of a country it does not really matter how good or poor their governence is some members of that population wiĺl probably result to violence if the precieved ocupying power does not leave. That is unless the occupying power "make a desert and call it peace" (Calgacus)—is that good or bad governance?

"Transnational flows of arms, for example, are no longer under the exclusive surveillance of states" apart from a short period in the 20th century the arms trade was never under the "exclusive surveillance of states" (end-user certificate).

So with the exception of the last sentence, I do not see the content of this section as an improvement on the first sentence in the article. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)