Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive

Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive

Use of the word terrorism
It seems, from Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, that people are in favour of trying to develop a sitewide set of guidelines for the use of the word terrorist. So I figure here's the place to make a start. Please make your suggestions below (I decided not to import the entire list of proposals from that article, because there's so many of them). Shane King 06:03, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

My personal view is that terrorist/terrorism should be subject to the usual NPOV policy as other contentious accusations are: You can use it so long as you attribute it. Use in an unattributed (i.e. absolute) sense should be avoided in all articles. At least that way we'll be fair and consistent, other policies seem too wide open to interpretation and hence edit warring. Shane King 06:08, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shane, I agree with your starting point. That is, if there is a consensus with your view, that would make little else to decide. Personally, I believe that some incidents or attackers are clearly terrorism or terrorists, and it's OK to describe them as such. But I'm open to other views.


 * Would it be a good idea to start a page on this? Maurreen 06:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel that the word terrorism, which was invented originally for political use, and with no single clear definition, should be avoided using on Wikipedia in any definitive sense. Who is labelled a terrorist is far too reliant on the political and cultural circumstances of the period it is being used. Those political and cultural circumstances of this period and on this Wiki, I find, lean aggressively against so-called Islamic terrorism while ignoring elements of other forms, such as state terrorism. That there can be no clear consensus agreement on what can be called terrorism and what cannot, I find the term far too POV to remain in any definitive use in the Wikipedia, and should be restricted to the level of an opinion. Nothing need be lost in doing so, as the word can easily be rephrased in a form less disagreeable, for example, "militant political action". Sarge Baldy 06:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree 100% with Sarge Baldy. Fredrik | talk 08:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mee too. Filiocht 09:13, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * not 100%. Terrorism used to have a clear meaning: violence or threat of violence against the civilian population in general (as opposed to selected targets or a specific group). Thus, assassination of a key figure is not terrorism, while random shootings are. the point in question is the intent to create an impact through fear. so, for example, a militant group or a gouvernment may claim to strike at a military target, but if civilians die, there may be suspicion that the psychological effect of this is desired (rather than unintended 'collateral damage'). Such accusations would amount to alleged terrorism, while in cases where the attackers admit to the intent of hurting civilians, they basically self-describe as terrorists. In some cases, militant groups will mix terrorist practice (attacking civilians) with paramilitary actions (assassination, attacking troops). Therefore, it may be difficult to classify entire organisations or individual people as terrorist: but a particular event should be more easily categorizable. Of course, "terrorist" is now used as a propaganda term, much like "communist" during the 50s. In my opinion, we should simply ignore propagandist use and stick to the dictionary meaning.
 * I think that the idea of simply using the dictionary definition to define terrorism would be fine if we could come up with a definition that gets a consensus. Using you definition, "violence or threat of violence against the civilian population in general", we get the following list of things that are/ are not terrorism.
 * Hiroshima bombing          - TERRORISM, Violence against entire city, no mention of state of war or state actor in your definition
 * Iraq Shock and Awe         - TERRORISM, as above
 * Oklahoma city bombing      - NOT TERRORISM targeted FBI agents, not civilians
 * Boston Strangler           - TERRORISM he was violent and threatened a large portion of a civilian population (women).
 * African US Embassy bombings - NOT TERRORISM (probably) embassies are government facilities staffed mainly by people who could be considered not to be civilian.
 * Anthrax letters            - NOT TERRORISM targeted (apparently) at politians and media (specific group of people), arguably non violent
 * 9/11 Attacks               - ?? Pentagon NOT TERRORISM (military), 4th plane probably not as the intended target was supposedlt the Whitehouse or Capitol hill, the trade center planes TERRORISM
 * If the pages on all of these were to contain these claims, I'm sure we'd have people changing them even though we stuck to (this) dictionary definition. Now I know someone will come back and attempt to tweak the definition, but I haven't seen a definition that doesn't have similiar issues Steven jones 22:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The Boston Strangler was not political, and so would not usually be described as terrorist. Although just a politically-motivated attack on the Pentagon would be a guerrilla attack (e.g. if an empty plane piloted by a kamikazee pilot was flown into it) the prescent of hundreds of civilians on the plane may make the attack terrorist. At the very least, the destruction of the plane was a terrorist attack under the definition. Embassies are usually not regarded as legitimate military targets and diplomats, along with senior government officials, are internationally protected persons. Also, over 200 African civilians were killed compared to a dozen or so American diplomats. Kingal86 18:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For this reason, I do not believe that "terrorist action" and "militant action" are synonymous. Rather, "terrorist actions" form a subset of "militant actions". While "militant political action" sounds like an oxymoron. A political action is an action concerned with policy. A militant action will always be connected with questions of policy, but is in itself not political, but militant. dab 09:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Masking disagreeable terms with euphemisms is every bit as POV as using the terms. older &ne; wiser 13:47, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * meaning, you agree with my lengthy exposition, viz. "militant" is an euphemism for "terrorist"? (by being a superset, as "killing" is of "murder")  the important (and difficult) part will be not to let factions tamper with the dictionary definition. dab 13:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I largely agree with your statement. I was mostly responding to Sarge Baldy's comments above--indenting to the correct level frequently eludes me. older &ne; wiser 14:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think Dab's right. "Terrorism" is the use of fear to accomplish a goal. N.b. that there can be military terrorism (the London Blitz, e.g.), where the intent is to fight via terror rather than via destruction or death. I.e. a terrorist act achieves its ends by fear. Generally, however, I also agree that terrorism is act of the weaker against the stronger, and it has to have a goal. The serial killer is not a terrorist. The fear generated as a by-product of conquest is not terrorism. Psychological warfare generally isn't. Terrorists do, probably, break down into those with political aims and those with cultural aims, but this latter seems to be pretty new. It's all a question of motivation, though, and that puts us in desperate need to be 100% sure. Shining Path is obvious: they came out and said that they were going to increase panic until they forced a worker's revolution. ETA is not so obvious. I agree that POV matters are very much involved here. Because we've got to know the motives of the act, we're far better off only using the term for the avowed terrorists and those groups far enough in the past as to have been examined critically by historians. Geogre 18:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ok, so we can apply "terrorist" with good conscience to any group that vows to strike fear into the civilian population (psychological warfare is normally directed against troops, making it a "legitimate" military tactic (in the sense, anybody who is armed is fair game)). I don't see a difference between cultural and political aims, though. I suggest we advise to restrict use of "terrorist" to groups who openly threaten civilians (Bin Laden qualifies, by threatening further attacks against the populace). Any other form of "terrorism" should be qualified as alleged (the London Blitz, and the Dresden bombings both caused severe civilian casualties, and may have been "acts of terrorism against the enemy populace", but there were military targets, and as long as we don't have proof that those responsible were mainly aiming at demoralizing civilians (again, it's "fair game" to demoralize troops), we'll have to call it alleged or suspected terrorism. dab 19:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest we abandon the term -- it is too propogandic and political, and adds very little that the article for any group it is applied to should not cover. --Improv 20:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest that the term should be used only with attribution of who says the person or organization in question is terrorist. I do not believe it is ever an objective usage. Even where in my own writing I would readily call some individual or group "terrorist", I do not believe Wikipedia should do so.


 * We especially shouldn't do so in the lead paragraph as if that is a defining term. A recent example -- and a group that I personally would call "terrorist" -- is the Shining Path guerrillas in Peru. I think it's entirely appropriate to say what nations and international organizations have classified them as terrorist, and to describe in some detail their obviously terrorist tactics, and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. In this case, I have little doubt what conclusion any reasonable person will draw. The problem with using the word "terrorist", unqualified, in the narrative voice of the article, and especially in the lead paragraph is that it is like stating a verdict: that is not our job.


 * If we start calling certain groups terrorist, we end up having to draw a line between who was and wasn't terrorist. Allow me to give a list of controversies we can avoid be adopting a clearcut policy. Which of the following are terrorist?


 * Hamas
 * The Phalange
 * Francis Marion in his conduct toward the Cherokees
 * The French Resistance
 * The Allied Powers for the Bombing of Dresden in World War II
 * The Japanese military of the 1930s for the Nanjing Massacre
 * Leon Czolgosz
 * Sacco and Vanzetti
 * Henry Kissinger
 * Bush
 * Muammar al-Qaddafi

I believe we would have disagreement on every one of these. Why engage an inherently controversial matter we have no need to engage? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not only is there no clear definition of the word terrorism, even taking any simple one you're left with several things that are highly subjective. For example, taking one (from the United States Department of Defense) the word means "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear". How can you know without a matter of doubt what the intention of someone's actions are, that someone necessarily means to inspire fear? Certainly there are cases where there is evidence to suggest that, but no one calls themselves a terrorist, and many others may still qualify for the term despite being less openly obvious about the intentions behind their actions. Still others contend violence does not to be direct, and that actions such as sanctions on a foreign entity (which has been shown in many examples to lead to poverty) can constitute economic terrorism. Most would not argue sanctions are not political in nature, or that sanctions are not a form of coersion, so does that not somehow qualify? Many arguments could be made to argue hundreds of things terrorism, using only common definitions, and many arguments could be made to argue against calling hundreds of articles terrorism. There does not appear to be widespread agreement that any action is necessarily terrorism (as suggested by nearly 45% of users wanting the word removed from September 11, 2001 attacks), so usage of the word clearly cannot be neutral, and will be continuously argued. The term is flimsy at best, and replacing it with less subjective wording will, if anything, only serve to make the articles more neutral. Sarge Baldy 02:43, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I expect this discussion will get long, so we might want to figure out some headings as we go along. Maurreen 06:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can we divide this up?
I was looking thru the page, and come to the conclusion that we may get closer to a resolution if we split the issue in half. We seem to be close to consensus on the unattributted labeling of people or group who are not self describe as terrorist. If this is the case we could vote on a policy for groups/people and then worry about the policy of labeling acts. Any thoughts?


 * I agree with dividing it somehow. But it seems like acts are easier to label than people. Terrorists are people who commit terrorism. Maurreen 03:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rationale supporting unattributed labeling
In my view, some attacks and people are clearly terrorism and terrorists. Labeling them as such concisely informs the reader. Maurreen 06:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Sarge Baldy above, terrorism used to have a clear definition, and still has outside the USA, while the US govenment has over-used it and turned it into a propaganda term. I think we should distinguished between: dab 08:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * calling an event 'terrorist attack': this should be possible without attribution, just by the nature of the event.
 * calling an individual 'terrorist': this is more difficult and should only be done when the individual publicly subscribes to terrorist agendas
 * calling an organization 'terrorist group': this can be even more difficult and imo should not be done without attribution, as almost every group involved in terrorism will pursue other tactics, and it will be too difficult to draw the line where the terrorist aspect becomes dominant.


 * The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia lists several groups of terrorism organizations.
 * The Music article says: "By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be." Does that mean we shouldn't label anything as music?
 * The IRA article mentioned below appears to conflate terrorists and guerillas, which I disagree with. Maurreen 06:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * you seem to misunderstand my point (or I yours). The (hypothetical) IRA example below is given as an example of not terrorism. dab 17:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a different mention of the IRA. The article coesn't conflate the terms, it points out who uses what term. Similarly the Nicaraguan Contras were freedon fighters to some, state sponsored terrorists to others. As for the hypothetical IRA example, by that definition a Palestinian suicude bomb in a bus with Israeli soldiers among the passengers is "not" terrorism. Unattributed use of this term just leads to such POV contradictions. dave souza 01:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * to a freedom-fighter, "freedom" is an end, to a terrorist, "terror" is a means. You may well be fighting for the freedom of one group by means of terrorizing another group (or, even more ingeniously, the same group;) – the terms are not in the same book, and mutually exclusive. dab 13:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The bombing of an ordinary passenger bus with some armed Israeli soldiers amoung the passengers would still be a war crime because so many civilians would die, and the bus is a civilian target. Public transport in general would usually be considered to be a civilian target, even though some soldiers use it. Moreover, soldiers on public transport are usually unarmed and off duty, and therefore not A military bus full of soldiers may be a legitimate military target, however.

If no one makes a serious objection that a sentence is untrue, then it can be included unattributed. In terms of terrorism, that means coming up with any logical definition of terrorism which doesn't include the act being described. Getting specific, in terms of the attack on the Pentagon, it is perfectly logical to restrict the term "terrorism" for acts which target only civilians, so calling that attack terrorism would be POV. But in terms of the attack on the world trade center, I have heard no logical definition of the term "terrorism" which doesn't include that attack, so using the term in that situation is NPOV. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes the World trade center attacks meet probably every definition of terrorism if you assume that they were done primarily to terrorize. What if (assuming all standard theories about the how and who of 9/11 apply) the reason behind the attack was not to course terror, but to bring about the financial collapse of the US? What if the reason was not about the enemy but about the supporters? Maybe Al quaida needed a large symbolic attack to rally its base. Maybe, it was just a matter of revenge, with no greater meaing at all? Can anyone say for sure the thinking behind the attacks. My guess is the motive was a combination of all of these, but I can't state that definatively. Steven jones 01:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * From Bin Laden's statement revenge " and punishing the aggressor" seems the main motive claimed. Sort of like punishing evildoers? dave souza 01:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All common sense points to the fact that the motives of the terrorists, at least in significant part, was to terrorize. I hear a few people claiming that someone might claim that this isn't true, but no one seems to actually dispute this fact. You say yourself that your guess is the motive was a combination of all of these. As for "punishing evildoers", an apparent reference to George W. Bush, I don't deny that the motive of the actions of Bush most likely fall under the term terrorism. But the definition of terrorism according to many people, including by myself, does not include acts which have military targets. I would consider the bombing of Hiroshima to be terrorism, though in this case this is most likely POV since the Americans claimed to be targetting a military base. The world trade center bombing, and the attack on it on 9/11, however, were indisputably acts of terrorism. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gotta love that circular arguement at the top there (The motive of terrorists is definitionally to terrorize). The problem I have, is that I think someone having a serious arguement about some thing being not terrorist is enough to stop the claim on NPOV grounds. That someone doesn't have to be me and the arguement doesn't have to be made (or rather doesn't have to be personally believed), for it to be stopped, the mere existence of it is sufficient. And this is the real reason why we shouldn't use the word unattributed, I can think of an arguement about almost every case commonly refered to as terrorist. Steven jones 04:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gotta love that circular arguement at the top there It wasn't an argument. Feel free to substitute "people who hijacked the airlines and crashed them into the world trade center" for "terrorists". anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anythime you start an arguement with a statement like "All common sense points to" you might as well be saying "From my POV I believe", you just can't do that here Steven jones 02:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem I have, is that I think someone having a serious arguement about some thing being not terrorist is enough to stop the claim on NPOV grounds. That someone doesn't have to be me and the arguement doesn't have to be made (or rather doesn't have to be personally believed), for it to be stopped, the mere existence of it is sufficient. It certainly doesn't have to be you, and perhaps the mere existence of it is sufficient.  But the mere speculation of the existence of it is not sufficient.  Until you have shown me someone who has seriously objected to the precise wording which is in question, I don't think you've shown POV.  And this is the real reason why we shouldn't use the word unattributed, I can think of an arguement about almost every case commonly refered to as terrorist.  I think we should rarely use the word unattributed.  But almost every case isn't every case. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * what Anthony said. dab 15:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, Until you show me the precise wording in question, I can't show you someone who has seriously objected to it. I am saying that if I am trying to be NPOV I can find serious objection to almost any non attrited accusasion of something being terrorist. Now I know I'm not saying every case, but I am only one person. I just skimmed back over the page and I can count 4 issues that I don't know enough about to comment on and only 1 thing that I couldn't seriously argue to be non terrorist. If I can that far on my own, I would think that the rest of the world could find an arguement for the last one.Steven jones 02:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) ps. I personally believe more than 1 was/is actually terrorist but that is just my POV.

Definition problems

 * There is no single generally accepted definition of terrorism. Our own terrorism page went for compromise and listed 6 events that most people could agree on, and even then I personally disagreed the with classification of one event. If we don't have a solid definition how can we objectively state that some act is terrorism and another act is not? Steven jones 08:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * that is news to me. Of course the definition would have to predate the post-911 hype, how about the venerable Webster's:
 * terrorism n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; "a mode of government by terror or intimidation." --Jefferson.
 * terrorize, v. t. [Cf. F. terroriser.] To impress with terror; to coerce by intimidation. "Humiliated by the tyranny of foreign despotism, and terrorized by ecclesiastical authority." --J. A. Symonds.
 * terror, n. [L. terror, akin to terrere to frighten, for tersere; akin to Gr. ? to flee away, dread, Skr. tras to tremble, to be afraid, Russ. triasti to shake: cf. F. terreur. Cf. Deter.]
 * 1. Extreme fear; fear that agitates body and mind; violent dread; fright. "Terror seized the rebel host." --Milton.
 * 2. That which excites dread; a cause of extreme fear. "Those enormous terrors of the Nile." --Prior. "Rulers are not a terror to good works." --Rom. xiii. 3. "There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats." --Shak. Note: Terror is used in the formation of compounds which are generally self-explaining: as, terror-fraught, terror-giving, terror-smitten, terror-stricken, terror-struck, and the like. "King of terrors, death. --Job xviii. 14." Reign of Terror. (F. Hist.) See in Dictionary of Noted Names in Fiction. Syn: Alarm; fright; consternation; dread; dismay. See Alarm.
 * My suggestion is that we only refer to an event as 'act of terrorism' if there is a declaration by the perpetrators that they indeed want to reach an objective by means of causing fear among the population. if there is no such declaration, but there is cause for the suspicion that this is indeed the rationale behind the act, we talk of alleged terrorism, or possible terrorist background of the deed.
 * dab 11:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that the webster's definition of terrorism is useful. By this definition an eight year threatening to beat up another child could be guilty of terrorism. I don't think this is correct and I'm guessing that most would agree with me.
 * Additionally, I think that it is too contentious to call something 'an act of terrorism' purely based on the declaration of attempting to achieve something by fear. I think if we stated that the early actions of the US in the Iraqi invasion were 'terrorist acts' we would have huge edit wars, but by you definition (remember "Shock and Awk") it clearly was. Thirdly, I'm not sure that things like protection rackets count as terrorism, but they are attempting to achieve something (money) thru scaring the public. Steven jones 01:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * you have a point, but consider my earlier restriction that terrorism is aimed at unarmed civilians. at least nominally, the "shock and awe" was directed at iraqi troops, not the populace. So the US campaign is on a par with, say, the IRA blowing up a british army transport in a crowded market: military target, civilian casualites. an eight-year old may of course be terrorized. It is a question of "let the facts speak for themselves" to evaluate how severe a case of terrorism this would be. dab 08:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The terrorist label is too political, with a contentious definition. Imagine if, for example, we were to have Pat Robertson establish clear criteria for the term "evildoer". In such a case, we may be able to come up with a solid definition, but the term, and the definitions, are contentious. We may say that we should instead decide on some other definition, but I think instead we should just not use the word in a prominent way. --Improv 20:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * a terrorist is a person who wants to terrorize. Of course, If people are not terrorized at all by him, he is a failed terrorist. An evildoer is a person who claims to do evil (there must be very few who seriously claim this). If his deeds by your standards are not evil at all, of course, he will be a failed evildoer in your book. In any case, "terror" as a psychological, and even physical, state, is much easier defineable than "evil". dab 08:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we say an evildoer a person who does evil, or versewise, a terrorist someone who claims to use terror? Terror and evil are both made up words with contentious definitions. We may be able to decide on defintions for them, but I see little reason to draw those lines. Let's just describe what the groups do, in the articles, and let the readers make their own judgements among lines like this. The words evil and terror add very little to understanding of these groups apart from prejudgement. --Improv 16:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * there is a difference between terror and terrorism. The ism part means it's a rationale, a conscious decision to use terror as a means. If people publicly admit to such a rationale, the case is clear. if not ("shock and awe" bombings), the term should be avoided or attributed. dab 17:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Shock and awe" doesn't make it clear? What else could the term "shock and awe" mean? Did the US not mean to terrorize individuals by cutting off access to all communications, and in some places, power? "Strategically" bombing targets for the purpose of destroying morale seems to be clearly indicative of terrorism, by any definition, and I for one will continually fight for the term to be used in this case and in hundreds of similar cases if people think the word should remain (which I do not). Whether a group makes suggestions that they are terrorists is of no actual concern, as the word is no less validly applied in any case without any sort of formal declaration, it is only more contestable and more objective.


 * For the word to remain in a definitive use, I feel that it must be used in all cases where it is properly applicable (whether formally declared or not), or it will remain as systemic bias; as I feel that in many of these possible cases of terrorism it is impossible to judge what the motive was behind the action, usage of the word in a definitive way is therefore prejudiced upon the attitudes of the people on the English Wikipedia, and therefore can never be neutral. As the word can be expressed in an extended form case-by-case in a way that gives more information than this term (ie. "practicing Islamic militant action with a declared intent [source] to incite fear into the civilian populace at large"). I see this word as neither essential or neutral. Sarge Baldy 19:21, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * re "shock and awe": I agree that is pretty close to admitting to terrorism. The point is that probably they meant to imply that the people they would shock were going to be armed troops, and in warfare, it's commonly "fair game" to terrorize armed enemy fighters. Since they did end up terrorizing the civilian population, they had better emphasize that this was not the intended meaning of "shock and awe", because otherwise it would amount to a textbook case of terrorism. (it is afaik undisputed that innocent people were terrorized in Abu Ghraib). We have to be extra careful who or what we call terrorist in this case though. Certainly not "the USA" (this would be just as bad as calling "Islam" terrorist). Possibly individuals, possibly even organizations, certainly the incidents. dab 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Dab, this paragraph seems to be a good example of why we shouldn't use the word. In it you have decided that something (Shock and Awe) wasn't terrorism because of what you think someone probably meant. This is definitionally POV! Additionally whether something is "fair game" or not shouldn't come into it. A terrorist act is a terrorist act whether you think that it is right or not. Your next statement really sums it all up though. You (correctly) say that it would be irresponsible to call the US terrorist, but it would be equally as irresponsible to call the Palestinian Authority terrorist yet I'm sure that some people would want to. The only NPOV way around this is to not use the word at all. Steven jones 12:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * we are arguing whether there are some legitimate npov uses of the term. Obviously, many people want use terrorism to refer to all sorts of things in clearly npov ways, including USA, Palestinian Authorities and Islam. That's completely out of the picture. The stupid "shock and awe" phrase is a PR stunt and not a statement. If the US administration is unable to communicate whether or not it is their intent to strike terror into the hearts of the Iraqi people, that is just an example of amazingly bad communication, and somebody should try to figure out what they really meant. But usually, we should assume that people actually believe in what they state publicly. Apart from that, I contiunue to argue that any -ism can be objectively self-applied. I.e. if I were to tell you that I am an atheist, a communist or a terrorist, you could label me with these terms, because I self-applied them to me. I could even be a terrorist because I believe in terror as a tool even without committing any crime myself. "Terrorism" does usually not include psy-ops against troops, because fighters usually don't admit to being in terror, or if they are, they cease to be fighters. Bottom line: I argue that we should use the term attributed, i.e. saying who said so, to organizations, and to individuals, except in cases where the individual unambiguously and publicly self-describes as a terrorist. We should be able to decide the terroristic nature of a given event, otoh, because it is usually very clear whether the intended target was military, a public figure, or if it was randomly directed against the populace with the intent to extort something by terror. dab 12:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had missed that you were not were against the unattributed classification of people/groups. That's something we agree. Moving along, I didn't think Shock and Awe was a PR thing, I thought it was military doctrine. Telling people about it might be PR but the idea (I thought) was something that the US military thought they could use to get an advantage over the enermy. Any way on to the arguement 8).
 * I have a problem with our being able to decide terroristic nature of a given event. Firstly it is sometimes not clear what the intended target of an attack is. (eg what was the intended target of the 4th plane on 9/11? who was the intended target of the anthrax letters?) Of larger problem is determining whether the "intent" is to extort something thru terror. Unless something is self-described that way by the attackers how do we know the intent? Some examples, was the intention of the Battle of Britain to gain total air domination to allow the invasion of England or was it to cower the British into accepting peace term? Are the intention of the Israeli incursions into Palestinain refugee camps to capture or kill terrorist or the terrorize the refugees into giving up the struggle? Did Timothy McVeigh blow up the Oklahoma City FBI building to terrorize american or did he do it to punish the Federal goverment for Waco? My guess is that 1 of these 3 was terroristic in intent, but that is just a POV inspired guess. How do we go about deciding the intentions in these attacks? As an aside, what do we do if we decide, as on the Battle of Britain page that terror was a secondary intent? Steven jones 01:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV problems
In agreement with Sarge Baldy's initial statement, unless those carrying out the action and their supporters claim themselves to be terrorists the word fails to be NPOV. There's no need to use the word unattributed: simply describing the actions and, if possible, the aims of those claiming responsibility makes the point clear - see the Provisional Irish Republican Army for, in my opinion, this done well. - dave souza 00:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What if those carrying out the action and their supporters claim themselves to be terrorists? And what if they just haven't commented one way or another?  Can we not say that Arafat is dead, until he agrees that he is dead?  Less sarcastically, must we come up with a direct quote to call someone an author or philanthropist or poet or astronaut?  The NPOV policy should be that no one seriously objects to calling the person whatever it is they are called.  If you can't find someone who seriously objects to calling someone a terrorist, then they can be called a terrorist.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * note the "-ism". that's the key difference. "-isms" refer to convivtions and mindsets. We can say Arafat is dead because he is dead, but to call him a something-ist would be a statement about his convictions and intentions. Just because some people are afraid of you doesn't make you a terrorist. You will have to consciously choose terror as your course of action. dab 08:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If those involved clearly claim it's terrorism, I can see no objection to use of the term. The IRA and Sinn Fein claim the Provos' acts aren't, and even though most governments think they are, that doesn't make it NPOV, and the article is careful to draw that line. In the case of 9/11 there have certainly been some supporters of the action, and if we're seriously trying to avoid taking sides it's wrong to assume that they're happy with the term. From the Washington Post's transcript of Bin Laden's recent broadcast his rhetoric is perhaps ambiguous: "Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.", and in my opinion quoting that is fine, but arbitrarily deciding that only the majority view counts does a disservice to Wikipedia..dave souza 01:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I can go with your NPOV policy if you remove the word seriously. Wikipedia can call a person a terrorist if no-one objects to the title. We can set policy that before any article names a person/group as a terrorist the issue must be voted on at a new page Votes for Terrorists, If after 7 days there are at least 1 yes vote other than the nominator and exacty 0 no votes the article can include the term, otherwise a note goes on the talk page stating the decision. After a vote succeeds the decsision can be reversed at any time if 2 people believe the decision was wrong, this could be done in a different section of the page. Now while I could agree to this policy it seems to be a waste of effort as I am guessing the we will end up ith exactly 0 people/groups/acts that are tagged terrorist. Steven jones 01:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Correct, that's what would happen. Which is why it's an obviously bad idea.  Giving this much power to trolls is foolish. Very Verily  08:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Supporting the action doesn't make the action not terrorism. And the people who committed the acts of 9/11 are dead, so they can neither confirm nor deny that it was terrorism.  If someone seriously disputes that an act was an act of terrorism, then calling it terrorism is POV.  Call it a vote, if you want.  I have not heard a single person seriously claim that crashing an airplane into the world trade center was not terrorism.  I've heard a few claim that someone else might claim that it's not terrorism, but that doesn't count, in my opinion. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, my use of the term "seriously" comes directly from NPOV. We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the nonbias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves. By "fact," on the one hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."  In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. You can't just vote that Socrates wasn't a philosopher and thus have the fact removed from Wikipedia or attributed.  You have to provide at least some reasoning which backs up your claim as a serious one. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

after arguing for some clearly restricted unattributed use of the term, I may come around to a change of opinion that we should give attribution in every case, because of the US propaganda stunts that, over the past three years, have made it all but impossible to use the term with a straight face. If we use attribution in every case, however, problems will persist. We cannot say "Bin Laden, by some considered a terrorist" on a par with "Islam, by some considered a terrorist religion" or "the USA, by some considered a terrorist nation". Widely attributed, end especially self-attributed, terrorism must obviously be mentioned more prominently. With self-attribution, I don't mean the person needs to say "I am a terrorist". It is enough if he says "obey, or we will blow things up". (yeah, I know, this will get us into disputes of how this is different from saying "cough up your WMDs and a pink unicorn, or we will bomb your cities into oblivion". But these disputes are unavoidable regardles of our policy, because the line is indeed difficult to draw). dab 13:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This just leaves us right where we are now. The word has a definition, and should either be used in every case where the defintiion is applicable, or it should not be used at all, because anything in between is clearly POV. Your thinking operates on the flawed logic that anyone who commits acts of terrorism must therefore be terrorist. In reality, most "terrorists" probably would find it more sane to keep it to themselves. If the United States admitted some things they did were acts of terrorism, they'd probably be threatened with a revolution in some parts of the country. If I were to say I was a terrorist, that does not make me a terrorist any more than saying I'm a murderer makes me a murderer, or a murderer proclaiming innocence make him innocent of the crime. And unlike murder, there is no clear way to determine whether someone is in fact terrorist; it can be presumed by statements combined with actions, but whether an act is meant to inspire fear or not can never be 100% determined, it can only be speculated. Even with enough speculation to cast such a judgement there are hundreds of cases where some could speculate terrorism and still others would disagree. Saying "Obey, or we blow things up" doesn't sound any different at all than Bush's calls for disarmament or Truman's threats of nuclear retaliation, it's just less political and more to the point. What you're proposing would just mean ignoring terrorism by any "legitimate" authority, and allowing it for "illegitimate" organizations that have very little to lose by being more frank about their aims. I do not find this neutral at all. Sarge Baldy 21:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I say attribute the term, and attribute it only to major news agencies, and use it to refer to acts mainly, as opposed to individuals. The arguments will not stop, either way, but that would at least be some guideline. dab 06:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no issues with using the term in any non-definitory context. Certainly it should be said that most major news agencies refer to these groups as such, and I'd say so for individuals as well. Obviously it's an important thing for people to realize, I'm just flatly opposed to Wikipedia defining any certain groups or individuals as terrorist, as I think that constitutes an official Wikipedia oppositition to said groups and individuals, and I feel an encyclopedia should have as little of an opinion as possible, but certainly give you other peoples. I would have absolutely no complaints to any other use of the word, and would certainly appreciate seeing sections highlighting oppositions in a critical format about attacks or even splicing the word in so long as it's clear that it's the opinion of the source and not of Wikipedia itself. Obviously no solution will end all arguments, but this would completely satisfy me. Sarge Baldy 08:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)