Talk:Terrorism/Archive 8

message: I've removed the following recent addition:
Government involvement in terrorist activities, and their true nature, is typically hidden from the civilian population. Even when revealed in blockbuster fashion, it can effectively be erased from collective memory. For example, in the US, the Reagan administration's support for attacks against civilians in Nicaragua, through the Contras, was made illegal by the US congress, and resulted in convictions of high-level Reagan appointees. Yet this high-profile terrorist sponsorship was forgotten in the US, long before Reagan's death in 2004.
This strikes me as inaccurate, not to mention OR. "Forgotten in the US"? Not at all. It's quite well remembered, and was brought up in the non-synoptic media any time criminality in the White House or the history of the Reagan presidency was discussed, and of course at the time of Reagan's death. "Effectively erased from collective memory"? Perhaps the editor who added this might wish to tone down the hyperbole to make his or her point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erased from the collective memory? 

message: In an ideal implementation of consensus, "those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus" ~Wikipedia.  In less than ideal circumstances, however, is there an objective codification of consensus to which we can agree temporarily, in order to produce a definitive introduction to the terrorism article?  I would like to try a rule-based implementation of consensus for the reason that no other method has successfully produced a stable and objective introduction to terrorism .
Imagine the article to be a blank page to which we will only add items that we can all agree are an improvement over the last accepted proposal.  Thus, our first proposal only needs to be an improvement over a blank page.  A proposal to replace it would only need to improve upon it.  We do not need to agree that each step is perfect, true, good, or beautiful—-only that it is an improvement over the last.
Good faith, and an assumption that opinions of all editors are valuable, must be present in order for this to work.  If there is any motive except improvement over the last accepted proposal, this attempt at consensus will fail.  Please limit your discussion in this section to whether or not each proposal conveys better information than the prior accepted proposal.  If anyone stands by their logical argument as to why it is not at least a little bit better, a proposal is dropped and goes back to the previous article until agreement on change can be established.  Let's make an honest attempt at consensus and see how good of an introduction we can create. --Zephram Stark 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this definition is better than a blank page.  It is simply a breakdown of the word: terror + ism.  If you think a blank page is better than this, please explain why you feel that way.  Otherwise, please propose an introduction that you think is an improvement over this one.  --Zephram Stark 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus in Action 

message: As one of the "fucking Jews" that Stark has made many personal attacks against, I object to his continued hijacking of the discussion on the page and to his pretending to be interested in improving it. I think it's quite telling that he continues to ignore the fact that there is already a definition of terrorism page that is helpful in this discussion, or that he continues to suggest original research definitions and support them with known sockpuppets. He even had me convinced for a minute that EKDK was not a sock, until I remembered that EKDK was the one who claimed that he and his college friends use the term "FISA-terrorism" all the time. Riiiight. I am happy to support changes in the current intro to the article but I am very uncomfortable with any input at all from Mr. Stark, no matter how "constructive" it appears on the surface, because I do not trust his input at all. He has made it impossible for me to assume good faith. He keeps imposing "tests" on the definitions people propose in order to steer things back to his OR definition. Then he invents sock puppets like "Professor Stevens" who chime in at just the right time. It is appalling to me that people are taking seriously his suggestion that we have this discussion on his terms only. The only voices I have seen worth ignoring in this discussion are those of Mr. Stark and his sockpuppets.--csloat 22:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a sockpuppet, for the millionth time, and these dimwitted attempts to portray me as such are TIRESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Administration knows I'm not, those who contacted me, so GROW UP csloat! I am here as an individual, and any contributions I make need not be slurred by your erroneous assumptions.--EKBK 15:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I happen to have first-hand knowledge that Jews have sex because otherwise I wouldn't be here. I don't know what the mating habits of Jews have to do with this article anyway. --Zephram Stark 00:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All kidding aside, I like you Commodore. I've seen you contribute extensively to other articles and I would love to have your unbiased input on the proposals above. There's no hidden agenda here. I want the same thing that you say you want, a great article. We can do that together if you want. --Zephram Stark 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal from a f*cking Jew

message: If you look through the history and archives of these discussions, you will notice dozens of people trying to create a definitive introduction for the article.  One reason to do so is because the article references examples of the definition.  Since there is no definition, these examples rely on nothing except the personal bias of the author.  Until we can create a definition to apply to the examples, I think it's safe to say that they are POV.  --Zephram Stark 14:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples without parameters or a consistent definition are blatant POV 

message: The people who want to keep terrorism undefined have sunk to a new low.  Now they don't even want you to know what Osama bin Laden said about motivations behind the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Here is the section in its entirety.  If you think that any part of it is relevant to an article on terrorism, please click here and push [Save Page].  It doesn't matter if you have ever edited something or not.  You can still express your opinion about the relevance of the following information.  If you are an editor who doesn't want to get on anyone's bad side, but wants to do the right thing, just work anonymously without logging in.  Here is the section in question.  You decide if any of it could possibly be relevant to an article on terrorism.  --Zephram Stark 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What they don't want you to know 

message: Since many of the editors of this page have been involved with Zephram Stark, I am placing notice that arbitration against him has been requested. Please add any comments or relevant information. Carbonite | Talk 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot?  If you don't want people to call you on your corruption, stop being corrupt.  It's that simple.  Trying to kill the messenger won't do you any good because everything you do on Wikipedia is transparent.  That's the beauty of it.  Anyone who wants to see if your accusations have merit is going to come to the same conclusion that they did the last time, that you are an idiot. --Zephram Stark 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment is a perfect example of why arbitration was requested. Carbonite | Talk 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let me rephrase.  Carbonite, don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot?  If you don't want people to call you on your corruption, stop being corrupt.  It's that simple.  Trying to kill the messenger won't do you any good because everything you do on Wikipedia is transparent.  That's the beauty of it.  Anyone who wants to see if your accusations have merit is going to come to the same conclusion that they did the last time: that your accusations of "sockpuppets" are unfounded, that you are the one disrupting the article on terrorism while I am actively trying to resolve differences, and that your ridiculous allegations fall squarely into the definition of idiocy.  --Zephram Stark 17:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what arbitration is for. And this isn't arbitration against you; Carbonite is speaking incorrectly. It's arbitration with you; the history of arbitration here shows that parties commencing the arbitration often find themselves having to make serious concessions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool, because I'm willing to do anything as long as the articles aren't negatively affected, and my only request would be that he stop following me around deleting and reverting my contributions.  --Zephram Stark 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zephram_Stark|Request for Arbitration against Zephram Stark]] 

message: From this point on, I'm going to ignore anyone making snide comments or doing anything but improving the article.  Most of the people contributing to this discussion over the past six months want the introduction to be definitive.  If we don't let the others sidetrack us, we can get the job done.
If you are willing to post here for the sole purpose of improving the article, while ignoring anyone making personal attacks, please sign below.
I agree  --Zephram Stark 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement to Ignore Personal Comments 

message: How does everyone feel about the Hipocrite Proposal?
*Not bad, but incomplete. I think it could be better.--EKBK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hipocrite Proposal 

message: How does everyone feel about the Stark Proposal?
*I like this one the best. It's concise. One way to make it better might be to shorten it in a few spots.--EKBK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stark Proposal 

message: How does everyone feel about the X Proposal?
*I think "The word "terrorism" is controversial, with no universally agreed definition." is a silly and untrue statement, especially for an encyclopedic reference. We know from the standard dictionary definition that one does in fact exist. Perhaps it's a controversial TOPIC, but the fact a definition exists is quite clear to anyone able to access a dictionary. For that reason, the entire article is sort of soured for me when I read it. It's wishy-washy.--EKBK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  X Proposal 

message: A few people have proposed deleting this article and using Political terrorism instead since almost all usage of the term is in reference to political intentions and because the general consensus is that the Political terrorism article is much better than this one.  How do you feel about using the Political terrorism article as a foundation and adding the parts of this article that we want to keep?
*Only Zephram Stark has ever proposed this. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Still working on that apology, Jayjg?  Perhaps I can help you with the wording, "Dear Mr. Stark, I'm really sorry for making stuff up and then expecting you to prove your innocence.  In the case of the dozens of times I've accused you of making sockpuppets, I realize now that you couldn't have possibly used fourteen different non-proxy IPs from all over the world, and that continuing to accuse you even after knowing this must have made me look pretty idiotic.  Then, on top of that, to claim that your motivations were not true in regard to this proposal must have really made me look like a flop-eared goofball, but that is all behind me now.  From this point forth, I Jayjg, will never accuse you of anything unless I have some evidence of it.  Additionally, I Jayjg, promise to stop following you around deleting and reverting your articles.  In fact, I Jayjg, will look up the word consensus and try to use it as per the definition!"  --Zephram Stark 20:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Did you read what Smyth said?  Only you have ever proposed "deleting this article and using Political terrorism instead since almost all usage of the term is in reference to political intentions and because the general consensus is that the Political terrorism article is much better than this one".  Just you, Zephram.  Smyth suggested merging that article into this, for entirely different reasons.  It appears you have been proved wrong again; are you preparing your apology? Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *OMG, this is just getting too funny.  I am not the "only" one who "has ever proposed this."  Do you know why?  Because I never proposed it, you blithering idiot!  How many times are you going to keep sticking your foot in your mouth?  I've told you three times that I never proposed it.  You merely have to do a ten second search to verify that, but you still keep accusing me of proposing it.  I did not propose it.  I have never proposed it.  I am against a merge and only mentioned that this was an option out of respect for those who have proposed it.  If you say that I proposed it again, I'm going to pee myself laughing.  --Zephram Stark 01:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg said you said "replace", not "merge". He has never accused of proposing a merger. Nice example of slight of hand there, though not very well executed. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, Calton.  Not only are my pants drenched, but there is coffee all over my keyboard.  I can't believe the lengths you guys will go to keep up this facade that administrators are above reproach.  Do you honestly think you can confuse the issue enough that nobody understands it?  "Only Zephram Stark has ever proposed this" is a lie based on absolutely nothing, no evidence, no proof, not even allusion.  When I call Jayjg on it, he accuses me of not proving my innocence in the matter.  How do you guys think you can get away with this when Wikipedia is transparent?  We can see everything that happens here.  Anyone can read the text above and know the score.  Even if you delete it, they can look at history. It's simply impossible to treat other editors as subordinates and get away with it here at Wikipedia.  Our editing power is equal.  The strength of our contributions is all that matters.  Status as administrator doesn't add weight to anything.  --Zephram Stark 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeph, just to change course for a second, what does this mean, in your opinion? BrandonYusufToropov 20:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on who you talk to, it either means that Jayjg should stop attacking me or that I should stop defending myself when he attacks (as per the discussion above).  In trying to decide whether or not I should stand against corruption, I always defer to the words of one of the greatest thinkers of our time: "In a perfect world, everyone could have perfect integrity.  In an imperfect world, we can still have perfect integrity if we are willing to go against the system."  --Zephram Stark 23:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: A few people have proposed creating two articles from this one: one for Terrorism, and another for Terrorist.  How do you feel about defining the terms separately?
* Only Zephram Stark has proposed this. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Proposal 

message: Can I have one from column A and one from Column B?  Hipocrite + current version?
*I couldn't find a way to convey this under the options listed above.  Hipocrite has the best leading paragraph but I really like the bullet list of "ingredients" in JayJG's proposal. - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Proposals 

message: *I think Hipocrite's version is a good place to start from (here is a diff). In the interests of bringing the page back to life, will everyone agree to unprotect the page and make those changes? – Smyth\talk 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect and incorporate Hypocrite's proposal?

message: I propose that we add what Osama bin Laden had to say about the motivation behind and intent of the September 11, 2001 attacks in his documented interview with Tayseer Alouni in October 2001.  I know that this is information that many people don't want others to hear, but can anyone argue that his saying it is not completely factual, cited, documented, and immensely relevant to an encyclopedia article on "terrorism?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Zephram Stark (talk • contribs) 15:20, 29 September 2005   (UTC)
::Let me try to answer that question by posing another. Should we, right now, incorporate what Charles Manson had to say about the motivation behind and intent of the Tate/Labianca murders in the article Murder? Assuming, of course, that we source the quote really, really, well? BrandonYusufToropov 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs in the Osama bin Laden article; a brief pointer to it at most might make sense here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent analogy, Brandon. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Words of Osama bin Laden 

message: Under EXAMPLES it says "have been described as domestic and international terrorism." Could we have a source? Who described it? You? The U.S.A. State Department? If I were to list examples based on neutral sources, it would be strikingly different than this one. --Black Angus 17:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It follows that if someone knows that the statements were made, that they would also know who uttered them.  However, I'm not sure that the person who added that section is still around.  It seems to be a throwback from the time when this article was very U.S./U.K. nation-centric.  I propose that we define examples based on specific criteria.  If a criterion is that some official source has declared it to be an example, I propose that we cite that source.  I further propose that we delete any example that is not based on at least one specific criterion.  What say ye?  --Zephram Stark 15:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Examples

message: It doesn't seem appropriate to me to start the article with the US Dept. of Defense definition of terrorism. Shouldn't this come from an educational or journalistic or referential (as in dictionary) source more representative of all people? I would also state that I think that a critical distinction of terrorism is that it targets civilians. That should be in the opening paragraph. DanielM 00:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."  Do you like that one better?  --Zephram Stark 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely much better.  The coverage of the article is not restricted to the US.  Then, the OED definition is preferrable. coco
I regard the source as representative of a broader range of people than US DoD, but the key point that terrorism must target civilians is not there. I would say "the use or threat of violence against a civilian, noncombatant person or population in order to further a political objective." What is your opinion of that? DanielM 10:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's still a debatable definition of terrorism. Many consider attacks against 'valid' military targets using the tactics common to terrorists to still be terrorism. For instance, the Basque movement in Spain attacks the national infrastructure (a valid military target) while intentionally announcing their targets to avoid civilian casualties by giving time to evacuate. However, the Basque movement is still listed as a terrorist organization by the US government.--Primalchaos 10:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Daniel, when you say "target" civilians, you are implying motive.  Civilians get killed in war all the time, so you are hinging the definition of terrorism on whether or not the main intent was to hurt civilians or to damage the military and economic power of an enemy.  Do you know that you share this definition with both President Bush and Osama bin Laden?  Both claim that their intent was to damage military and economic capabilities.  One of the most popular books on the subject was written by the acclaimed philosopher Peter Singer: Talk:Terrorism#The_Importance_of_Objectively_Defining_Terrorism.  As evidenced in these discussions, there is much misconception about the examples of terrorism.  Our purpose, in writing this article, is to convey information that will minimize these misconceptions.  --Zephram Stark 14:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and change it. I'll back you up. Just remember that no matter what you say, someone will violently disagree with you. So cite sources for everything. If you can find a more neutral quote that still meets your minimum requirements for terrorism, that would definitely be an improvement.  Nobody with any integrity will delete something that is an improvement. --Black Angus 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entry Kicks Off with US DoD Definition?

message: If it wasn't overrevert by accident, what are those "protocols denouncing terrorist sponsorship or activity" please ? Taw 14:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State sponsors