Jump to content

Talk:Terrorism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 487: Line 487:


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


There doesn't seem to be here anything about Anarchist terrorism from the 1880's onwards. I guess this shows the bias of Wikipedia.

Revision as of 14:09, 11 March 2010

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • Terrorists act deliberately.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorism involves coercion.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists try to create fear.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists try to attract media attention.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists are motivated by a political purpose.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists can be governments.
Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists target innocents.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists strike armies/police but disregard innocents.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorism includes war.
Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorism is justifiable in some situations.
Occasionally agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorists advance an ideological goal.
Somewhat agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tom, I made my proposal above, ages ago.--Igor21 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Igor I couldn't find it above. Is it archived?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

How? Governments, scholars, newshounds, activists of many types all squabble over what terrorism is and is not.- Sinneed 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; ref [1] Georgius2010 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Not done No agreement  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

Element Frequency
Violence, force 83.5
Political 65
Fear, terror emphasized 51
Threat 47
(Psycological) effects and (anticipated) reactions 41.5
Victim-target differentiation 37.5
Purposive, planned, systematic, organized action 32
Method of combat, strategy, tactic 30.5
Extra-normality, in breach of accepted rules, without humanitarian constraints 30
Coercion, extortion, induction of compliance 28

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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#definition contains to much WP:OR.-- Bonifacius 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Igor21, please see my comment above made at 12:11 on 27 February 2010. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

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)[reply]
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[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} 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)[reply]

Excesive further reading

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

Further reading as of 30 February 2010

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
  • Anderson, Sean; Sloan, Stephen (1995). Historical dictionary of terrorism. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-2914-5.
  • Charles Tilly, Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists in Sociological Theory (2004) 22, 5-13 online
  • Schmid, Alex (Ed.),[1] UN Forum on Crime and Society. Special Issue on Terrorism. 2004, Vol 4:1/2.

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

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

External links as of 30 February 2010

Papers and articles on global terrorism

Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States

Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel

Other

-- Bonifacius 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. ThemFromSpace 09:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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[reply]

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[reply]

If you really insist, I would say under definition of terrorism#Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism after the quotation from Vallis. Cheers!-- Bonifacius 11:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]


There doesn't seem to be here anything about Anarchist terrorism from the 1880's onwards. I guess this shows the bias of Wikipedia.

  1. ^ "Unclear - various articles on terrorism are included" (PDF). Forum on Crime and Society. 4 (1&2). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. December 2004.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terrorism&oldid=349218887"