Talk:Terrorism

Images

Want any more for this? Stephen Ewen 00:21, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes this could use some more images. --Charles Sandberg 05:45, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Charles, about the AK-47 image caption. "...low cost and high numbers." I would recommend a chance to "...low cost and high availability." Additionally, if the AK-47 is a highly reliable weapon, it's probably worthy of mention as a reason why it's popular.--Robert W King 09:13, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Done --Charles Sandberg 15:46, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Definition

I've taught this topic before in philosophy classes and one of the most difficult aspects of the topic is, of course, the definition. We must, therefore, get that topic right. "Terrorism refers to any act, usually violent, meant to coerce behavior for political ends." This will not do. By this definition, all arrests by police officers are terrorism, given the "political end" of maintaining law and order. I'm not sure we should begin with any particular definition at all, since there is no agreed definition. Also, there are some who deny the existence of "state terrorism," or who find the concept problematic. Therefore, to assert, without qualification, that "armies, police, and intelligence services" commit terrorism is to take a stand on that issue--which is contrary to CZ:Neutrality Policy. One last thing: I should think the obvious first example to give of a terrorist act would be the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most devasting and consequential single terrorist act ever--thus, we ought to have a picture of that at the top, before we have one of the OK City Federal Bldg bombing. --Larry Sanger 17:34, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

About 911, I was thinking about doing that and putting Oklahoma City down in the history section. --Charles Sandberg 17:37, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

The opening paragraph is a suitable encyclopedia-style definition; do not just read the first sentence! The article then does an unusually good job of discussing the definition issue, with citations and quotations from multiple authoritative sources. If someone has changes to make, please make them on the draft page. We need to get approvals moving along and changes in text or illustrations will just delay matters.Richard Jensen 17:42, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Richard; the fullest sense of the term is extremely difficult to capture in the first sentence, but the first several sentences do so, and quite well. As for the image of the Oklahoma City bombing, I actually would strongly prefer it over one of 9/11, as it is a reminder that, however egregious 9/11 was, that this article is not about that event only, but about a complex social phenomenon which is not easily generalized. Russell Potter 17:59, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking the same you were Russell, when I put the Oklahoma City pic in. I think we should keep it instead. --Charles Sandberg 18:20, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Bad sentence in first paragraph

"Terrorists seek to obtain the influence among the population through the publicity of this violence" -- I don't know what, if anything, this means. It sounds like a very bad translation to me. Hayford Peirce 19:04, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for noticing this -- have had a try at fixing it. Russell Potter 19:13, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Infelicitous writing of first paragraph

There are only six sentences, a couple of which are quite long and have a genuine cadence to them. But of these six, four of them begin with the words "Terrorists" or "Terrorism". This is needlessly repetitious and grating to the eye and ear. The first two sentences, I think, could be merged, perhaps along the lines of: "Terrorism refers to any act, usually overtly violent, meant to coerce behavior for political ends, generally by bringing fear to a civilian population in order to obtain a specific political goal." I *really* dislike those two sentences -- each of them as a stand-alone is OK, but together they're bad. Hayford Peirce 19:20, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

yes but let's approve it tomorrow and then make small changes. Richard Jensen 19:25, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Larry says that this is a very important article for him and CZ and that it should be as good as possible. Why not take a little time and polish it to perfection first? Why approve something that we *know* needs improving? Hayford Peirce 19:36, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

The new tag gives us 3 days. I think that's fine. Despite the headline I recently saw in the Weekly World News (Rome was built in a day!) the whole philosophy of our Approval process is geared to the idea of continual improvement. There's no "perfection" in this model, just the collective work of us all in (to quote Dr. Seuss) bettering and bettering the entry. Russell Potter 19:46, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I think the first sentence of the article should say something true, or at least not obviously false, taken in itself. Before my recent addition, it said something obviously and straightforwardly false; now it's a little less so with "and usually against civilians." Hayford, your addition might also be an improvement. The fact that other sentences are intended to qualify it does not make its falsehood less problematic, I think.

Also, as to the picture, I am not persuaded by the argument that the OK City bombing picture is better because, if we use a picture of the WTC, people might think the article is only about 9/11. I doubt anybody would draw that conclusion. We should use a picture that is of either the most important, or else a representative act of terrorism--or else a montage. If representative, it should be Islamic terrorism, because most terrorism in recent years has been Islamic terrorism. This is true, even if it is not exactly PC to say it, and we do our readers a disservice by pretending that it is not. The OK City bombing was pretty unusual. Actually, for future reference, I think a montage would be best.

Finally, if we can do a better job than the Wikipedia article, I think we should. --Larry Sanger 20:02, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Omissions

There are some features of this article that to me seem surprising. There is no mention of the Irgun Zvai Leumi and related activities in 1931-1948, without which mention of the PLO seems overtly unbalanced. Nor is there any mention of the IRA, and its civilian bombing campaign.

On the other hand it seems surprising to me that assasination of political leaders should be classed as terrorism; should the various abortive US plots against Fidel Castro be mentioned in this context?

It seems to me naively that the "clean" line is to confine terrorism to meaning deliberate and indiscriminate attacks, outside the context of war, that target civilians in an attempt to achieve political change via the responses of that civilian population. This would exclude most actions of states against their own people, and would exclude for example the saturation bombing of cities.Gareth Leng 09:31, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Gareth Leng makes some very good points. I agree there should be coverage of Irgun activities and the IRA. The assassination of political leaders, I agree, is not what we mean by terrorism. Government action is more debatable. The original Terror of the French Revolution was government action, as was a lot of totalitarian activity in 20th century (Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc). but that is usually handled outside the contect of terrorism because the full state apparatus is used. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak--of people who do not have a state apparatus. (The question of terror bombing of cities in WW2 is still another matter, which is handled by mainline military history. The goal was not political but economic disruption.) We approved this so we could move forward and I hope Gareth proposes additional new material. Richard Jensen 15:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

It is important to note that this is an individual editor approval and, as Richard has eluded, he cannot participate much in the way of content on the actual article according to our current rules. He can, however, make suggestions here on the talk page and let others actually do the editing. The other option is to wait for two new editors in the workgroup to sign on. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:22, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Nu

If this article is not changed soon, it shows to me that Citzendium does not work (yet).

Months ago two valid points were made, and nobody really disagreed with their substance.

Irgun Tsvai Le'umi (Etsel) [and Lehi (aka Stern Gang)] is/are missing. Etsel invented -- or didn't they -- placing bombs on market places used by the enemy ethnicity.

Targeteing political leaders follows outside of terrorism as I see it. I guess rather than only not mention the CIA targeting Fidel and the Assassins, the first sentence has to be editid slightly.

Terrorism refers to any act, nearly always violent, unpredictable, and chaotic in nature, often targeting XX civilians XX, intended to create an atmosphere of fear in order to obtain a political objective.

Maybe "randomly" after "civilians" or " "innocent" " before will do.

BTW, the first occurrence of the word the Academie Francaise has is 1852. The quote in footnote 1 is "terror (terrorist, terrorize)". Since this statement is made twice in the article, there should be real prove, or the reference should be to the English word describing the French situation, not to the French word -- or it should be phrased more cautiously. Compare the phrase from wikipedia "The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution". ---- On rereading the to sentences in the article on French terorism I notice that I was to harsh. I got the impression, that the term was coined in French, whereas My impressions from the dictionaries is, that it was an English coinage. Maybe one could make this clearer in at leat one of the two sentences mentiong the same fact. Arno Schmitt 01:52, 16 November 2007 (CST)

MY OED says that it was indeed first used to describe the *State* terrorism of the French government. On the other hand, it *also* cites 1793 as the first use of it in today's sense, "The causes of rebellion, insurrection....terrorism, massacres, and revolutionary murders." Hayford Peirce 11:17, 16 November 2007 (CST)

nonsense

This approved article states: "The French government under Robespierre systematically used terrorism during the French Revolution". This is -- in my view -- nonsense. As is stated elsewhere, terrorism is the weapon of the weak, used against soft, i.e. innocent, targets. It is not "state terrorism" when Stalin or Robespierre frighten their "own" citizen, but when United States Soldiers or Contractors RANDOMLY kill Iraqi and Afghan civilians. It is not state terrorism when a country at war tries to destroy the infrastructure of its enemy and there is some collateral damage, but when -- in the view of the speaer -- the "collateral damage" is the main aim, it is (in his view, of course)

"In the late 19th century small groups of revolutionary anarchists were formed. These anarchists successfully assassinated heads of state from Russia, France, Spain, Italy, and the United States." -- This is true but belongs rather to the articles Tyrannicide and Propaganda-by-Deed.

The Black Hand was a group active before World War I that was involved in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria which was considered an act of terrorism that started the First World War. -- repetition of precending quote.

After World War I terrorism became an official policy in states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. -- Nazi Germany called the partisans terrorists. If you don't use your judgment, but just write, what some people think. it's not worth the reading.

If I am the only person finding the article unacceptable, I am clearly in bad company and leave you alone. Arno Schmitt 12:25, 16 November 2007 (CST)

You're not in bad company, I too see problems here of neutrality as well as accuracy and balance. One problem is no mention of the Jewish terrorist groups operating before and in the early days of the modern Israel. Another is neglect of the IRA and its terror campaign (quite extensively funded by American sympathisers).Gareth Leng 11:34, 22 November 2007 (CST)

Well, this article looks very much like something from Wikipedia to me. There exists a substantial academic literature on terrorism and political violence [even a journal with that very title] and the article has not one reference to academic sources. Everything seems to be American state propaganda, with a little from the UN. In terms of content and definitions, these are very peculiar and do not reflect mainstream views at all. I do not know why this article was approved. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:58, 22 November 2007 (CST)

I agree with Arno's point above that the Terror of the French revolution is not something commensurate with what is currently known as terrorism, and have inserted a quote from Robespierre that I hope clarifies that. I think this article needs rethinking according to a different plan. Perhaps it needs to address the cliche "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", needs to explain the arguments for terrorism - the rationale, and needs to discuss the moral issue of whether evil in the pursuit of good is justifiable, both in the contect of terrorist actions and in the context of anti-terrorist actions. Historically, Guy Fawkes? The reference to Communism supplying an ideological base seems just wrong. Some Communists certainly pursued terrorist tactics, but I don't know where the ideology comes from. You'll note I hope that the quote from Robespierre makes it clear that he used democracy as the ideological justification for his terrorism.

I don't mean to suggest that this article is not a good and honest start; I think it is, but it needs diverse fresh input to evolve.Gareth Leng 04:06, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Draft changes

These are definite improvements, Gareth. I think the article also needs a much stronger [and less biased] theoretical base, which will come from academic literature: I will have to find time to look these up and make any necessary changes. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:24, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Revoking approval

I was asked to weigh in on the question of how an approval might be revoked. Currently, the rules on revoking approval are as follows:

Cancellation of nomination for approval. If another editor, who is also expert in the topic of the article, believes it does not meet the standards, he or she may either (1) discuss the problems on the talk page before the approval date, and try to have a consensus on a revised version (recommended), or (2) cancel the "nomination for approval" of the article by removing the template. The second editor may take this action without consulting the first; but if the first insists, the issue of approval is resolved by the relevant editorial workgroup(s) as any editorial disputes are resolved (see policy on resolving editorial disputes).

In the absence of clearer rules about this, I would stipulate the following as rules that apply just to this article, until the Editorial Council has weighed in:

1. If the original approving editor declares that he or she wishes to revoke an approval, the approval is thereby revoked. Constables should unprotect the main page and replace the currently approved version with the most recent draft version (using the move tab), and should delete the draft page.
2. To clarify item (2) in the above, in the absence of any clear workgroup dispute resolution mechanisms, if any two editors in the relevant workgroups declare that they wish an article's approval to be revoked, it is thereby revoked.
3. The approval of an article can be revoked by a vote of the Editorial Council.
4. The approval of an article can be revoked by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may be overruled by any group of three editors who are qualified to approve the article. (The Editor-in-Chief may not singlehandedly approve any article.)

I hope this helps. Obviously, I regret that our rules on these matters are not better worked out. It's one among many governance issues that I want to tackle as soon as possible. --Larry Sanger 08:07, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Thanks for that Larry. For others, I should add that it was not I who asked about revoking it. I support your provisional rules; my thinking was just to get this article into better shape and re-approve it. Obviously, this sort of subject is controversial but I think it is also worsened by the lack of expertise in the USA as terrorism is a new issue there. The older global literature can help with all of this. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:13, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I think people who want improvements should start making them in the new Draft version. If they pass muster the new version will replace the original. I note the original is VERY strong on the matter of definitions, and the historical section is a brief survey, with seldom more than a sentence or two on each instance. Let me add that unanalyzed quotations from terrorists justifying their work is unencyclopedic. Our job is to explain and interpret. Richard Jensen 09:09, 23 November 2007 (CST)

The definitions are not from independent academic sources and are in conflict with Neutrality Policy. They are detailed, but highly controversial and very slanted towards US interests. This is not acceptable. I do not see how you can explain without proper definitions of what needs to be explained. Quotations from terrorist organisations can be used, but do need to be analysed, it is true. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:24, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Point of clarification. Individual definitions cannot be in conflict with the Neutrality Policy. What is neutral, or biased, is not individual claims, but rather the role they play in the article. For example, if the article claims that such-and-such is the definition of "terrorism," then of course that would be biased, simply because it would endorse one definition, when there are many others that others would endorse. In short, neutrality is violated when the article is made to endorse a point of view that some, particularly some experts, disagree with. That is what our policy states, and that much isn't going to change. --Larry Sanger 10:40, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I agree completely Richard that quotes generally need commentary and context, I added them as I found them, essentially to help to fill a gap in understanding how terrorist groups justify their actions. It seems best to see the words by which they justify their actions, rather than simply ascribe motives to them. It's good and right to both explain them and if necessary balance them. Gareth Leng 09:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Propagandistic quotations are rarely used for politics articles in this encyclopedia in the first place. "balancing" hate speech with some opposite hate speech is not encyclkopedic either. We're in the role of analyst here. Richard Jensen 09:38, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I am sorry Richard, but you have allowed biased definitions which are essentially propaganda from the US government in this article, but insist on labelling statements from terrorist groups as being propaganda. Obviously, both are: but as one type is not labelled, and is privileged over the other, I am removing [again] the biased comment. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:49, 23 November 2007 (CST)

And again, I have to insist that definitions per se cannot be biased, except in the context of our article(s). Our article can be biased by presenting any one definition as the definition. Moreover, it constitutes bias if any view is labelled by the article as "propaganda" unless it is generally accepted by all sides that that is what it is. In short, the question is obviously not who we should say is engaging in "propaganda." By now, I should have thought, these sorts of matters are obvious. --Larry Sanger 16:57, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I have reinstated the statements from Bin Laden, under a new section which requires some analysis. It is not irrelevant material, even if you think it is merely propaganda, Richard. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:09, 23 November 2007 (CST)

The definitions come from a Dutch book (Schmid, A. & Jongman_ published a decade ago, not from the US government. Please re-read the CZ rules on neutrality. If there are different definitions than the 100+ used by scholars across the world, what are they? Richard Jensen 10:12, 23 November 2007 (CST)

What you have just written is an incorrect statement of facts. There are definitions from all over the place, especially a "legal definition" from the US government. I can hardly believe that you wrote the paragraph above. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:28, 23 November 2007 (CST)

For one very different definition (from Islamic scholars), see [1].

that's a very bad definition indeed, --one person's rather odd views. ". all dictatorial acts against peoples and all forms of protection of dictatorships, not to mention their imposition on nations;....all types of pollution of geographical, cultural and informational environment. Indeed, intellectual terrorism may be one of the most dangerous types of terrorism" Richard Jensen 12:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Are you reading the same document? The definition is this:

Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind.

excluding:

1. acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers;
2. resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by the force of arms;
3. rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism and efforts to undermine their institutions;
4. resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on the latter's strongholds;
5. . retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative.

The above definition, however, does apply to the following:

1. acts of piracy on land, air and sea;
2. all colonialist operations including wars and military expeditions;
3. all dictatorial acts against peoples and all forms of protection of dictatorships, not to mention their imposition on nations;
4. all military methods contrary to human practice, such as the use of chemical weapons, the shelling of civilian populated areas, the blowing up of homes, the displacement of civilians, etc.;
5. . all types of pollution of geographical, cultural and informational environment. Indeed, intellectual terrorism may be one of the most dangerous types of terrorism;
6. all moves that undermine adversely affect the condition of international or national economy, adversely affect the condition of the poor and the deprived, deepen up nations with the shackles of socio-economic gaps, and chain up nations with the shackles of exorbitant debts;
7. all conspiratorial acts aimed at crushing the determination of nations for liberation and independence, and imposing disgraceful pacts on them.

It is a very wide definition, but in my opinion rather better than the US legal definition. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:01, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Martin, please--your views about what the best definition is are not relevant, and stating these views accomplishes nothing. The definition of "terrorism" is, obviously, a matter of some dispute. It is not the role of either Citizendium articles or talk pages to settle what the correct definition is. So, please, stop acting like you are trying to settle what the correct definition is. It is the role of the article to give a broad overview of the different approaches to defining the term. This is much harder. Surely seasoned scholars such as yourselves have no trouble grasping what I'm trying to say, here.

I stipulate that anyone who insists that the article state any particular definition is the correct one, or that any other is definitely incorrect, is not welcome to work on an article that, obviously, requires collaborators with more fine-tuned ideas of what neutrality is.

If in your opinion I am needed to ban someone from working on this article because he continues to insist upon (or against) any particular definition, and is not trying to represent all sides sympathetically, please let me know. I simply refuse to let CZ be embarrassed by further debates between editors like this, which are, quite frankly, completely unnecessary and silly to boot. Over and out. --Larry Sanger 17:11, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Larry, you misunderstand completely. I am not trying to identify "the" correct definition: my comment to Richard is that the Islamic definition pasted above is more acceptable to me personally than is the US state one. The problem with the article is that its choice of definitions is slanted or biased. I don't see that the debate is silly, because it is not easy to decide on what to include and what to exclude. This is our task.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:34, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Would it be dumb or naif of me to suggest that *both* definitions could be included, with suitable commentary on each? Hayford Peirce 18:44, 23 November 2007 (CST)

It would be fine by me. The quotation was found by Gareth Leng, and he is working on this article rather than me. I am simply trying to make helpful editorial remarks -- maybe not succeeding, from Larry's terse remarks. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:17, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Hate speech?

I didn't read these as hate. There is a problem in presenting terrorists as merely evil people whose actions are inexplicably bad (and indeed a neutrality problem; even here we are not about making judgements). It is important to understand why people act in these ways, i.e. what are the causes of terrorism, and to understand what the terrorists hope to achieve (and why they think that these actions might indeed be effective). Terrorism requires a population that if it does not support the actions, at least shares their motivation and which endures a sufficient sense of injustice to shelter and protect the terrorists. It is I think important then to see directly the motivation as it is understood by the population that passively harbours terrorists.

The history of Jewish terrorism is an example of the success of terrorist actions.

The challenge for Citizendium here is to keep a cool and objective tone; it is still for the readers to judge terrorist actions, not for us to do so on their behalf; we merely give relevant facts and information, analysed in a balanced and objective way.

I have no particular attachment to the particular quotes used; they seemed to display clearly bin Laden's rationale, and how else are we to do that?. I don't think we should avoid quoting terrorists, indeed I think it would be daft to do so. Quoting people at least allows the reader to see the terrorists own rationalisations, if we try to explain the motives of terrorists without quoting them, then it seems to me that it will be harder to avoid the impression that we in fact share those opinions. Gareth Leng 10:56, 23 November 2007 (CST)

I support these views 100%, Gareth. And well done on finding the Mandela quote! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:29, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Keeping cool

I don't think we should try to avoid differences of opinion - or be afraid of airing them. The test for Citizendium is not how well we avoid disputes but how well we engage in them - and while we can do so with good humour and respect for each other and different views, that's fine. I don't see any problem here yet, we're exchanging views (robustly but rationally), thinking about them, that's good. We have a draft article to work with after all, we can try things and see how they go.Gareth Leng 03:56, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Gareth, on the one hand, I agree that we should keep our cool. On the other hand, I think we actually should avoid expressing irrelevant differences of opinion, particularly when doing so will only goad others into a pointless debate, otherwise known as a "pissing match"--something silly that accomplishes nothing except make a mess. There is nothing wrong about expressing differences of opinion about how the article should read, as long as they are well-informed by the Neutrality Policy. Arguing that a certain definition should not be included, because it is "biased," is an example of a remark that is totally ignorant of what our neutrality policy requires--not just that, but it actually encourages a completely wrong interpretation of the policy. This is frustrating to me because we have been over this again and again, and by now, I should have thought that gentlemen as intelligent and well-educated as these would have glommed onto the concept, which is not particularly difficult. Similarly, arguing that a certain definition is the correct one also reflects a misleading notion of neutrality. Exchanging differences of opinion like that--where what you are doing is essentially discussing about how an article should be biased--are strictly off-limits, as far as I'm concerned. You may not continue what is, for all intents and purposes, a debate about what bias an article should reflect, because it may not reflect any bias, and so your continued debate in this fashion does nothing but upset the larger the community. Please stop it. --Larry Sanger 07:49, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Larry, as I keep on telling you, and you keep on refusing to see the point, your neutrality policy sounds very nice in theory. Putting it into practice is much more difficult, and you clearly have no idea how to do it. What we are doing on these pages is, through dialectic discussion, trying to work out how to reach a non-biased article. I am sorry that you do not see it, and I really do not accept instructions from people with less experience than me on how to conduct complex debates. Sorry to be so blunt, but I prefer to be straightforward about this. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:47, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Actually Larry, I don't think that it was ever suggested by anyone here that the article should assert that any one definition was correct. I read Martin's comments as pointing out that there were other ideas of what constituted terrorism that should also be mentioned, and that interpretations of terrorism from the perspective of the USA and Britain were not always shared by other parts of the world (or even always shared by the USA and the UK). I read Richard's comments as questioning whether alternative views were in fact held by any significant and notable grouping, an important consideration, and one I'm not really equipped to answer. I think the answer is that, in the Islamic world especially, there are very different views on what terrorism means to those in the article, and by those definitions and understandings, the actions of the USA and Britain constitute state terrorism. Clearly and understandably this is not a mainstream view in the USA or Britain; by and large we define terrorism in such a way as to exclude what our countries do. The issues here are how to express these different understandings of terrorism in this article, and how to explain terrorist motivations in a neutral way without appearing to be apologists for terrorism. I think this is a serious debate in good faith - it is certainly not a debate about which definition we think is "best", and Martin expressed an opinion simply by way of stating that the very different definition from an Islamic source deserved to be treated seriously here - i.e. included in some way. The decision to include it or not needs us to think about not just neutrality, but also about academic notability - and indeed about coherence for the article. I think that the article should properly refer to significant different understandings of what terrorism is, including those held in the Islamic world, and perhaps should mention that some actions of the USA and UK governments are themselves seen as state-sponsored terrorism elsewhere. Alternatively, and perhaps better for now, the whole issue of state sponsored terrorism should be separated from this article into a new article.Gareth Leng 12:30, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Thank you, Gareth, for your cool exposition of the issues. I should add that there is a real academic dispute between many European scholars and those of the USA and UK about the issue of state terror. Although I do not work on these issues, I have been present at rather acrimonious disputes: on the whole, I am supportive of the typical European position which is that the activities of western governments or states in perpetuating terrorism are important and should be included in the general debate. I do not think there are many Americans (other than Chomsky) who support this position. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:05, 24 November 2007 (CST)

It appears I am not going to be able to get away with relatively glib pronouncements, if I want to provide guidance on policy. All right.

I agree that the views about terrorism are many and varied, and all need to be fairly discussed--indeed, if you didn't notice, that was my point. I have taught the topic of terrorism to philosophy students on multiple occasions and am (or used to be!) pretty familiar with many intricacies in the topic. I agree that all major views on terrorism need to be included in the article; and those would, of course, include the views of militant Islamists and the European Left (well, the Left everwhere), which are hostile to the mainstream or traditional views of terrorism. Indeed, I think we need to have a better discussion of the rhetoric of "terror": competing definitions, or what many would call "redefinitions," of the term appear to amount to so much propaganda (like so much redefinition), and discussing them while clarifying their propaganda value is crucial. The concept of terrorism has been so much discussed and appropriated by various apologists for terrorism--especially by the opponents, of all sorts, of Western capitalism and hegemony--that it has been pressed into service to mean "violence of which I disapprove." Anything like a consensus concept of terrorism has, thereby, become weakened and made to seem contentious. This does not mean we should say the concept is meaningless. Indeed, that too would be contentious: we should say that some (research would be required for examples...) believe the rhetoric behind the concept has rendered it meaningless. Anyway, that whole dialectic must be made clear (and I notice that it is hinted at, but it could be made clearer in the article).

That said, I think we should have more detail about the history terrorism, and we need to add a section about acts of alleged state terrorism, with examples from around the world (not, of course, just the U.S.). In giving this history, of course, it should be made clear that some believe that there is an important difference between military actions by the state that have unintentional civilian casualties, and attempts to undermine a regime by deliberately killing civilians. Clearly, the opponents of such military action will interpret the attacks as deliberate; their defenders will deny it; and it is incumbent upon CZ to explain that the difference of views about "state terrorism" often rests on propagandistic claims about whether groups and governments do things "deliberately" or not.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me give you an example. Israel is often severely criticized for bombing targets in Palestinian areas, resulting in civilian (non-terrorist) casualties. This is sometimes called "state terrorism." On the view of most Israelis and Americans (among many others, no doubt), this does not constitute terrorism, because (it is said) Israel did not deliberately kill civilians. That is a difference that is supposed to make a difference. That was very unfortunate collateral damage, allegedly necessary to get at "the bad guys." But the critics of such actions point out that they are taken in order to intimidate the general population into stopping further terrorist attacks (such as Qassam rockets), knowing civilians will be killed: so how could they not be deliberate? The article had better make it clear, however, that most of us see a big difference between such attacks, on the one hand, and an attack where a Palestinian terrorist fires of a Qassam rocket, or blows himself up on a city bus, and thereby does quite deliberately kill as many civilians (non-combatants, non-governmental targets) as he can. The difference, I (I confess--not that I approve of this!) and many others believe, is that the government is not killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, it's risking killing them for the sake of killing terrorists; while the terrorists are, of course, very deliberately killing civilians, period. But of course I realize that this is a controversial thing to say, and hence the view I express would have to be attributed somehow.

I hope it is obvious, then, that I think the discussion in the article at present is not sophisticated enough (although I don't think it's bad, either; it's a good start, but it's leaving out a lot). Now, in the midst of all of the above dialectical confusion, it merely muddies the water for anyone to say, "I think definition A is superior to definition B," or "There is a consensus concept of terrorism, which is X." I would even have a nit to pick with this: "There is a problem in presenting terrorists as merely evil people whose actions are inexplicably bad (and indeed a neutrality problem; even here we are not about making judgements)." I agree with that as far as it goes. But obviously, there are very many serious people who believe that terrorists are merely evil people whose actions are, if not inexplicably bad, then inexcusably bad. This is what radical leftists believe about U.S. state terrorism (it's inexcusably evil); it is also what most mainstream Americans and Brits believe about the terrorist bombings in their countries in the last six years. Those people must not be assumed by the article to be obviously wrong. Maybe they're right: CZ may not take a stand.

So what do we do? We say (if it's true), "According to many Americans and Britons [I can't speak really for anyone outside of the English-speaking world, because I'm not familiar enough with their attitudes], what they call terrorism is inexcusably evil, so senseless and wrong that attempts to 'explain' and 'understand' terrorist acts amounts to sympathizing with the terrorists. But according to the Left, which observes forceful government response to such 'terrorism' with alarm and dismay, the actual 'terrorism' appears to be the understandable reaction to the forces of creeping globalization and colonialism, and the more deadly government responses are more richly deserving of the harsh epithet 'terrorism.'" I'm sorry if this sounds contrived, or obvious, and I'm sure that my wording can be vastly improved upon. It also glibly summarizes a much more complicated debate. But that does, I hope, get at the right tone: one that does not judge either side to be right, but which openly lays out, on a "meta" level, the details of the debate.

I'll leave my contribution to this discussion at that, if you'll let me--i.e., if you can avoid insulting me or attempting to undermine my authority.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 20:36, 24 November 2007 (CST)

I've not seen it mentioned above so I'm just making a quick-drop here. Scholars on the left in Latin America have ideas about what constitutes State Terrorism, and point to certain U.S. actions in Latin America, especially during the Cold War, as examples. A general definition in this vein might go, "Actions carried out by governmental, non-governmental, secret, or irregular units, generally organized by the United States, with the purpose of frightening communities, sometimes to incorporate use of deadly force, into "supporting" United States interests." Stephen Ewen 00:33, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Larry: I am pleased to see that you now recognise that it is not simple to implement the Neutrality Policy. The starting point should be -- at least in this case -- to identify the major competing positions and analyses. This is what Gareth started to do and I was supporting him in so doing. The common points of the definition in the article -- while a standard academic analysis -- actually conceal the wide range of competing positions. How then, is that compatible with the Neutrality Policy?

You should also note, apropos your inappropriate condescending remarks about a "pissing contest", that I am not an author on this page, and was trying to bring some editorial oversight. The starting point was exactly that of a consensual defintion, which you seem to agree implicitly is not appropriate.

Finally, I have no problem with the quality of what you have just written above. It would have been helpful to have done that in the first place, rather than threatening [in an unconstitutional fashion] to ban editors from pages on which they are subject editors. That threat alone did potentially more damage to CZ than anything Jensen or I have done. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:22, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Martin asks: "The common points of the definition in the article -- while a standard academic analysis -- actually conceal the wide range of competing positions. How then, is that compatible with the Neutrality Policy?" It's not. I'm not sure why you thought I was defending that point, or defending anything about the article, for that matter...I'm ready to remove its approval if necessary (see above).

As to "it is not simple to implement the Neutrality Policy": please. I never said or implied that it is simple to implement the Neutrality Policy. The only thing simple about it is that it is simple to understand, and it is often simple to recognize violations of the policy. But actually producing a neutral text--as the policy itself says (!), and as I told people back in 2000 when writing & advocating Nupedia's "nonbias" policy, neutrality is a difficult art, one that is learned by practice.

We probably agree re a consensus definition, but let me be clear. The notion of a consensus definition of terrorism isn't inappropriate per se--again, it depends on the context of the article. What's inappropriate is to imply that, in fact, there either is or is not a consensus definition. The article ought to report what some describe as a consensus definition. Failure to do this would be to disregard their important work. But it also ought to report other views, which reject the notion of a consensus.

It is precisely constitutional to threaten to ban, and to ban, people for defiance of the neutrality policy and for rejection of other fundamental policies. This has always been my practice, in case you hadn't noticed. Nothing personal. It's one of the few ways in which I am at least going to pretend to be a "hard ass." And this practice of mine isn't going to change, either. --Larry Sanger 08:12, 25 November 2007 (CST)

I do not have any problem with the content of your last posting, but simply ask you to be more careful about jumping to conclusions from limited evidence. We all can make that error, so it's nothing personal, either. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:29, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Fair enough. --Larry Sanger 08:58, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Getting on track

If we can get past these interesting discussions that I hope have come to an end, and get back to the article.

1) The discussion about definitions highlights one neglected issue - the issue of to what extent labelling particular actions as "terrorism" can be regarded as propaganda by the State; i.e. to what extent the label is used by States to conveniently justify actions in furtherance of broader policy objectives. This question could be raised in the context of how Russia characterises the Chechen resistance, how apartheid South Africa characterised the ANC, how the British characterised the liberation fighters in Kenya, as well as in the context of the Middle East. In general, the issue is that characterising the opposition as not merely wrong but as deeply evil can be used as an justification by a State for actions that would otherwise be regarded as wholly unacceptable (i.e. justification for torture; detention without trial (e.g. internment in Northern Ireland); political assasination; suspension of democracy and human rights). - Do we even get into this, and if so how?

2) the article at present sees the West as the primary target of terrorism in the world. The Russians might disagree, so might those in Sri Lanka (Tamil tigers), Turkey (Kurdish terrorism), Pakistan, and some countries in South America. - should we worry about this, should we try to be broad in our coverage, or be content with just selected exemplars. By being selective are we missing some important issues?

3) Should we deal with internal terrorism - for example, animal rights extremism and anti-abortion movements?

I'm not pretending I'm equipped to deal with these issues, I'm not. I'm just raising them as issues to think about in the context of neutrality and balance.

Gareth Leng 05:52, 26 November 2007 (CST)

These are all central issues. Clearly, within one national territory, state violence is generally seen as legitimate, whereas opposition to the state's monopoly of violence is described as terrorism. This changes, if the legitimacy of the state is sufficiently challenged. It also should apply when the state violence goes outside its territorial-legal jurisdiction -- e.g. if the USA without international mandate or a declaration of war, interferes in another country's domestic affairs with violent activities. [The extent to which the label of terrorism is used for internal political debates is of some interest, but in my view should not be emphasised.] But see point (2) below, as well.

(2) The emphasis on the West is clear bias, because it casts one part of the world as victim and another as aggressor. There are also structural differences, in the sense that the terrorism directed at the USA and some of Europe is about global issues, whereas most of the other cases you mention are about specific claims of minority groups -- i.e. they can be seen as challenges to the legitimacy of the national state. These two types of case seem to be completely different both causally and in terms of objectives.

(3) I never thought of these as terrorism. Perhpas they are; perhpas they are just labelled as such for propaganda purposes. I guess we could express some ambiguity about these cases, unless someone knows any literature on the topics.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:22, 26 November 2007 (CST)

It's not our job to attach blame or make judgements about rights or wrongs, just to report (sparingly) relevant and notable views. It's not bias to report the West as a target for terrorism, it obviously is, but to suggest that it is the main target may be misleading.

Obviously I have a personal concern about animal rights terrorism[2]; I wouldn't pretend it's an issue of comparable significance to others, but in terms of actual number of incidents (as opposed to their lethality) it's probably much more significant in both the USA and UK than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Gareth Leng 08:24, 26 November 2007 (CST)

Bug alert!

Just encountered a bug. I found Ganor's article online, so tried to add that link. The reference was in the bibliography page, so I went into that and thought it better that this reference be in the main body, but when I went from the bbliography back I was in the Approved page not the Draft page and mistakenly edited that instead....Gareth Leng 06:32, 26 November 2007 (CST)

The approved page should be locked and obviously is not, if you could edit it. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:05, 26 November 2007 (CST)

I reverted the edit back from the article page. I assume Gareth, that you still have Sysop priviledges from when you were a constable? or because you are on the executive? --D. Matt Innis 08:05, 26 November 2007 (CST)

Thanks Matt. I guess I am just a very priviledged person (perhaps because I try never to use them :-) )Gareth Leng 08:25, 26 November 2007 (CST)