Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism

For discussion around the terrorism related articles.

Recommended edit to the definition of terrorism
Terrorism is... Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. Technical usage tends to refer to non-governmental entities against whom military deterrence is less effective, which therefore cannot readily be held accountable.

Ending the war over the war over Japan
(moved from Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) (moved back per below)
 * Why? Sorry but moving this discussion to Centralized discussion/Terrorism makes no sense whatsoever. Jehochman said "start that discussion" - not move a section of an article talk page to a new centralized discussion. The thread I started here has nothing to do with a centralized discussion on terrorism. Nothing at all. Why move it here? You're right that the discussion should have been mentioned at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it was bad form on my part to neglect to do that. But the remedy for that is a note on the article talk page. The questions here relate to two and at most three articles and have nothing to do with the general topic of "terrorism." I'm fine with that conversation happening, but this is a completely separate conversation about very, very specific content. It's more than a bit presumptuous to have moved this here, so I ask Kendrick or someone else to move it back where it belongs. We can post notes on the talk pages of the other two articles. If there is some agreement that this thread belongs where it was begun and not on an unrelated page I'll move it back myself if no one else does.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The logical place for this at this point, if you are keen to move it again, is at Talk:Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism, with the two competing tags on the article pointing to the discussion. -- Kendrick7talk 07:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would actually be a very bad place for it, since it is possible that that article will be deleted and thus the conversation would be lost. If you want to move it to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for some reason, go ahead, but to me it makes far more sense to put it back where it started rather than moving it to some related article for no particular reason. Essentially all of the debate about this question has been at the "Allegations" article, so it stands to reason that it should continue to be centered there. Obviously mergeto tags and notes on the talk pages of the other two articles would be needed. Please just move this back where it began and from where it was moved for no good reason. It's fine to delete these three previous comments if that happens, since they will not make sense over there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename some terrorism articles
We have a bunch of articles called "Allegations of state terrorism by...", such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. The "Allegations of" is inherently creating a POV fork because it emphasizes the "pro" view, while filtering out the "con" view of those who deny the proposition. Instead, the articles should be about the topic and include all major points of view in proportion to predominance in reliable sources. Allegations and denials should both be covered if there is controversy.

Second, I think state terrorism (read that article, please) is a highly controversial term. It would be better to rename the articles using terminology that has better common understanding. I have proposed using war crime or human rights violation, but am open to other suggestions. In the alternative, if we can improve the potential parent article state terrorism to establish a clear definition on reliable sources, we could possibly continue using that term in titles.

Thoughts please! Jehochman Talk 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with removing "Allegations" as that is made quite clear in the article itself, but I do not find any problem using a problematic concept, provided intelligent NPOV discussion about its uses, applications, and controversies are fully treated within it. If we got rid of all the controversial terms we'd be greatly bereft of many important encyclopedic articles. And, yes, by changing the title, you effectively get rid of one article and start to create a different, albeit, an overlapping and related subject matter/article. There is much social discourse within the conceptual framework of Terrorism/State Terrorism, and that should be respected and reported on accordingly as a perfectly valid concept.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of State Terrorism of Canada or State Terrorism by Canada, how about State Terrorism and Canada as the best solution? I have no problem removing the "Allegations" from the title - but don't think "Human rights violations" is anywhere near the same term. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you take allegations out of the title, then you are definitely engaging in POV because the state that sponsors the activity does not believe they are engaged in "terrorism." Allegations leave the fact that not all accept the position---The US has condemned Iran of "state sponsored terrorism" does Iran accept that?  Some organizations have accused the US of terrorism, but the US simply discounts those positions.  To state an opinion as anything other than an allegation, is POV.Balloonman (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Logically then, we could remove both "allegations" and "terrorism" from the titles. This would be my favorite outcome, if we can achieve consensus for it. --John (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond the POV issues of the words allegations and terrorism, there is a larger issue of grammatical ambiguity. (Is the subject nation making allegations or receiving allegations?) A little while ago I tried bringing this up on each page, but was either ignored or drowned out by other bickering. Perhaps now we can find a new name for this series of articles. Random  89  06:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations of X" is not inherently a POV fork, as long as the article itself is NPOV. The guideline notes that what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement. Also, IMO, one could argue that "Allegations of", if anything, actually emphasizes the opposing viewpoint since it implies that the claims are not necessarily substantiated. I personally don't care if "Allegations" is removed from all the "Allegations of state terrorism by X" articles, but since the subject is terrorism as committed by state actors, rather than non-state actors, that part has to stay. War crimes, Human rights violations, Crimes against humanity, and Crimes against peace are all different terms with different legal implications as they arise from different sets of agreements and international laws, some with historical precedents, although there are commonalities and overlap. They are essentially different subjects and therefore appropriately different articles. I agree that the grammatical ambiguity mentioned by Random is an issue and needs to be addressed. — Becksguy (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I commend Jehochman for taking this forwards. I am going to be unable to commit much to the discussion, but I am confident this can be a success. Getting as many people as possible to comment, from all angles, is more important at this stage than reaching an immediate solution. I'll try to look in when I can and check progress, but I'm delighted so far with the standard of debate. Keep up the good work, all. --John (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States talk page, there is a real problem with using war crime, human rights violation, etc. in the article title for the reasons Becksguy describes. What is being discussed in the US State Terrorism article are, quite simply, accusations of "state terrorism." If there were a way to avoid using those words in the title yet still be talking only about accusations of state terrorism I'm all for it, but for the life of me I cannot think of a way. Most of the suggestions which folks like Jehochman have offered in good faith ("violations of international law" was an earlier idea which several people advocated) would transform the subject matter of the article in some fundamental way.


 * I've always been in favor of State Terrorism by the United States or State terrorism and the United States (with the latter describing not only accusations against the US, but also accusations made by the US government, for example Dick Cheney once accused Iran of state terror - though I can't find a cite for that now - and Tony Snow said of Syria a year ago, "the Assad regime remains an organ of state terror").. However both of these titles have been tried (the latter was the title before the current "allegations" title) and folks have had problems with them. I don't have a new suggestion in mind as yet.


 * I would like to respond to Balloonman's point above because it is a common viewpoint which seems to make a lot of sense but ultimately one which is, I think, problematic. The fact is that we have all kinds of articles with titles that are unambiguous but really are only describing an opinion or something which is certainly not a fact. Previously I gave the example of Resurrection of Jesus as an article which describes a belief held by many as though it had occurred and was not merely a belief. This category has a bunch of similar articles and indeed I'm sure we could find the same kind of titling practice with other religious articles. Closer to this article take a look at Category:Genocide, which lists a number of events which most of us would consider genocide or "massacres" but where many of the articles are titled in such a way that suggests that the label "genocide" or "massacre" are not controversial when indeed that may be the case (even if those objecting are in the minority, which is probably usually the case for those articles). The common-sense approach to me seems to be keep the title along the lines of "State Terrorism by the United States" and then immediately state that this is a belief held only by some and indeed by a minority. I just don't see the need for the "Allegations" disclaimer anymore than we should re-title the article Flat Earth to Flat Earth (inaccurate scientific theory) or something similar. If we write the article well enough readers will know it's an inaccurate scientific theory, and likewise if we write State Terrorism by the United States accurately readers will know it is a minority view which is strongly contested by the US government and many others.


 * Finally I fully endorse Jehochman's call to improve state terrorism and Random89's point about the grammatical ambiguity. There was some recent discussion about the latter here but it seems to have run aground somewhat.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And once the articles start getting renamed to things like State Terrorism by the United States you will be engaging in pure POV pushing. It is a POV that the US has engaged in any state terrorism---likewise, it is a POV that Iran/Iraq or any other country have engaged in state terrorism.  Such a change is not acceptable, and should such a change be made, I will personally start taking these articles to AfD.  As allegations, you leave open the fact that they are claims made by certain parties (whether the US, a third country, a human rights organization, what-have-you.)  The fact that other Stuff exists is not a valid argument for creating POV pieces.  These are pov forks whose acceptance is a minority position.  Oh yeah, and I think the EIGHT AFD's for the US article would show that there isn't a consensus to change names.  As is, it is acceptable, changing names would probably result in an AfD that determined that the name should be changed back.Balloonman (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just FYI Balloonman, for long periods of time - including during AfD's which have resulted in "keep" or at least "no consensus" - the article was titled State Terrorism by the United States (see here, probably the single most contentious AfD in the article's history, resulting in no consensus). I agree that it is POV that the US (or any other country) has engaged in state terrorism. Likewise it is POV to title an article Resurrection of Jesus as though that was something that actually occurred. That was an intentionally provocative example as were the others in my above comment, but I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that we routinely title articles which articulate a certain point of view (often held by the majority, but sometimes by the minority) without qualifying that viewpoint in the title. What we do instead is write the article in an NPOV manner such that the title itself is not taken as the gospel truth (pun-stumbled-across but ultimately intended, however I'm not remotely on some anti-religious kick here and my apologies to anyone who is bothered by the example - the "resurrection" article just comes quickly to mind and I think was mentioned in some past debate about the "Allegations" article by someone else or possibly myself). You did not really engage directly with my point about other articles with titles that present a belief/opinion in a straightforward and unambiguous fashion. I only bring that up because I think it's important as we have this conversation about the term "terrorism" given the complexity of that term and (of necessity) our approach to it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the listing of terrorism by nation-states is not only an artificial attempt at introducing original research (by creating a syntehsis), but is also just plain inaccurate. A page that details for, instance, Iran and terrorism would be of dubious help due to the succession of governments ruling that country. Would it include the Shah of Iran, and anything his government would be involved in? What about other, similar countries, whom have either changed leadership, type of governance, or have ceased to exist/amalgamated with others? It would be better to simply weave such incidents and events into the general history, and general foreign policy history, of a given country or the page dedicated to a country or regimes existence. SiberioS (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that the word "terrorism" should only be placed in an article title, if there are multiple reliable sources which use the word "terrorism" in that context. Same as when we're dealing with biographies of terrorists, and choosing whether or not to put them into a "Terrorists from " category.  If we have reliable sources that call the individual a terrorist, then the category may be appropriate, but otherwise, the category should be left off. --Elonka 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should do what the BBC do: use neutral synonyms such as "militant" - as the age old adage goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Sceptre (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following comment was added to this page, but removed all the previous content, which I restored.  Chzz  ►  09:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The usual discussion rallies for the definition rather than the practice. In the real world, the hypothesis doesn't matter... at least not to the extent to which facts do. Today, for example, Israel’s acts against Palestinians demonstrate perfective exemplifications of state terrorism. The former US government itself has already established some sort of cloaked state terrorism under the entitlement of ‘war against terrorism’. Such allegedly defensive measures in response to the tragic events of 9/11 has issued the formula of ‘civilization vs. terrorism’, except that the entire approach to apply it worldwide ended up in issuing a different formula of ‘state terrorism vs. terrorism’. How many wars does peace need to eventually prevail?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.185.149 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 May 2010

Attacks by Iraqi insurgents on American military forces are not terrorism
While there are problems in defining terrorism, most definitions, and most people's understanding, is that it involves attacks against civilians. This includes definitions in American law (see United States in Definitions_of_terrorism ). I therefore feel that in the article Iran and state-sponsored terrorism, in the Iraq section, the large number of attacks against American forces should be removed. I am no friend of Iran or the Iraqi insurgents, but those attacks are guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. Instead attention should be given to the large number of terror attacks on civilians in Iraq, such as the marketplace bombings which killed up to 100 people. Tomtul2 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Iran: only source is US?
"the government of Iran has been accused by members of the international community of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists." That's the quote right "international community" as in not only the US. But the source for the quote is by "Council of foreign relations" which states that the US acuses Iran. I think there is a definite worry regarding the credibility of the US, given it's past errors with WMD's in Iraq, but, more to the point, if "international community" means only the US, then it shouldn't say international community but only US. otherwise It'd be nice to have a reference to that effect. (the foreign council, a US thinktank that seems to repeat the government rhetoric acritically, seems to conflate nuclear threat sanctions with terrorism ones without due cause)--Kiyarr lls- talk 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Iran and state-sponsored terrorism
([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&oldid=prev&diff=697656290 diff]) I looked at the source, pages 99-103; As far as I see, it's in page 102 which says Ansar Allah claimed resoisibility for the AMIA and Panama attacks, with "Ansar Allah" being a "cover-name for Hezbollah's IJO", or the Islamic Jihad Organization. There is a meaningful dfference between this statment and "Hezbollah operatives boasted of involvement". Neither Hezbollah nor Iran ever claimed to be involved or having links with the group or these bombings. Similarly for 2012 Burgas bus bombing which is listed in such a way as if the involvement is a fact. More importantly, Hezbollah does not operates on behalf of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc.; listing whatever that seems related to Hezbollah in this article is questionable. It is exactly like listing bombings of Jundallah group (widely known to be linked with the US govt) in United States and state-sponsored terrorism article. Similar issue about the image I removed, File:Anti Israel.jpg, which you restored in your edit. --Z 16:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source (Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God by Mathew Levitt) says that Hezbollah claimed responsibility, and that is also what the article says ("boasted of involvement" refers to the 1992 Israeli embassy attack, which Hezbollah both claimed and denied responsibility for, but was caught boasting about in intercepted communications; as Hezbollah ultimately reaffirmed its responsibility, this is a needless distinction). The source also presents evidence demonstrating Iranian culpability in planning, sponsoring, and sometimes ordering all of the attacks in question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)