Talk:Terrorism/Archive 10

message: I would love to know why you think Seperatism and Democracy are legitimate explanations of the cause of terrorism. Headsock 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes

message: Please note that all of the major additions and deletions to the entry I have been making are part of a larger attempt to restructure the article to make it more readable, consistent, accurate, readable, and shorter.  In essence, I'm trying to make it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a forum where everyone constantly adds their two cents over and over again on a topic.Headsock 00:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  major edits 

message: This is my reasoning for my most recent edit of the lone wolf section, deleting the first two paragraphs.  I believe the only function such a sectio has in our entry on Terrorism is to dispel the myth than individual fanatics acting alone should be considered in the same breath as terrorist organizations.  The causes, effects, and means of handling lone wolf attacks are entirely different than terrorist acts perpetrated by groups.  As I mentioned in the article, Boehlert's discussion of terrorism vs. hate crimes reflects how the social construction of an attack determines it's classification.  To understand and prevent terrorism, it is vital that we deconstruct both kinds of attacks to see what causes them and what effectively counteracts them. Headsock 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, wouldn't it make sense to include this information on a section about Lone Wolves, as they are engaging in terrorist activity? Red Heron 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye to lone wolves 

message: If my edits on the "causes of terrorism" section are acceptable, i propose deleting the psychological factors, section, as it is rendered largely irrelevant given the sociological understanding of terrorism. Headsock 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a section on psychological factors that assist in the furthering of terroristic aims, such as the grooming of psychological traits that promote any or all of the five stages theory, as well as recruitment and other activities that require a focus on the psychological makeup of the individuals who are members of such organizations. There are roughly 5% of any society (according to the American Psychiatric Association) who are active dissidents, but very few (if any) of these ever engage in terrorist activity. Rather, terrorists (from my own observation and nothing more) tend to come from a gradual recruitment process that builds on things like poor education, political hatred, susceptibility to suggestion, and a host of other traits. This gradual process would then be necessary for inclusion if it can be substantiated (which I cannot do, as it would be considered OR and thus unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry). --Red Heron 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section on "psychological factors" 

message: RonCram added a theory by Christopher L. Brown that claims that al Qaeda attacks after releasing two videos.  Someone should add that this theory has been rejected by other terrorism experts and that the CIA refused to even comment on it (that's from the article Ron links).  Mr. Brown is not a "terrorism expert," regardless of what the neocon website CNS News says.  Interestingly the site only says he works for a Washington-based think tank but refuses to tell us which one.  As far as I can tell, this guy's only publication is about British theories of human rights in the 18th century.  I've never seen his name listed on any list of essays by terrorism experts and I've never seen his name on the program for any conferences about terrorism.  A google search yields 112 hits for both "Christopher L. Brown" and "terrorism" - very few of which actually refer to this person and even fewer (I can't find a single one!) that refer to his theories on terrorism.  Compare a similar search for real terrorism experts for example.  I don't think it's a good idea for wikipedia to hilight every crackpot theorist as an "expert" just because some right wing website calls him that.--csloat 17:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the sites that I can find that refer to Mr. Brown's theories on terrorism tend to be very much on the crackpot side of things, and spin out conspiracy theories that don't have a solid basis in fact, or which distort facts in a manner consistent with propagandism. The term "expert" however is a subjective one, as anyone can publish a book that says anything they want to, as long as it would sell. Sales are very much a part of who is and is not considered an "expert" in any field, and thus subjectivity in the academic world must be attributed for anyone without academic credentials. Take Kerry Boren, for example, who has multiple books published on various historical topics: very much an "expert" in the classic sense, but most of his work is theoretical at best. I doubt very much that he's personally surveyed most of the subjects he writes about, though his writing reflects a realism that makes an otherwise dry subject very appealing. I don't think he has much in the way of academic credit, however, and is simply a "well-selling" author. This distinction is perhaps the most important when determining who can or cannot be considered an expert. I'm afraid that Mr. Brown might qualify, despite the fact that any theory advanced would be automatically suspect by anyone who is well-studied in the area.Red Heron 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "terrorism expert"? 

message: ...I usually refrain myself from editing articles. As such, I will leave it to the rest of the community to deal with this line (at the end of Examples of Major Incidents):
"Terrorist are cowards that can't fight a real fight and win. They have to make up for their small penises by blowing up innocent people."
You might want to try Chris Brown or Christopher Brown and terrorism before you make such broad stroked  statements
Please sign your comments with four tildes. MichaelBillington 10:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm quite sure there are quite a few terrorists who have NO penises. as in, they are women. Gringo300 07:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling... 

message: Although I feel it is important to know the history of terrrorism, I do not feel that it necessarily belongs in the "defintion" section of the article.  The "different definition" section of this article has been broken down into legal/state definitions.  This rules out opinions of the definition of terrorism and also makes the article much easier to read.
It might be nice to put the word in perspective with some examples of how its been used historically. If you want to take what I added and put it a tier down thats fine. We also need to deal with the fact that we now have a Democratically elected terrorist state in Hamas, that has been recognized by President Bush, albeit with no great pleasure, but still some redefinition of terms is required.
Federal Street 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be tough since one man's terrorist is often another man's freedom fighter. The definition might depend on which side you're on. The British probably considered George Washington to be a terrorist.SR - RE 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism definition... 

message: Tactics vary between groups.  Islamist terrorist groups use the promise of a "martyr's" reward in the afterlife.  In addition, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was known to offer money to Palestinian martyrs' surviving family members after a successful attack.
I reworded these two sentences, but that doesn't change them still being crap.  I don't know much about terrorist recruitment, but I doubt that the promise of 70 afterlife virgins is the Islamist terrorist recruitment method.  The gratuitous mention of Saddam Hussein while ignoring Iran, by far the largest state sponsor of terror, again reflects the continuing Western obsession with Iraq after a U.S. PR blitz during the 1991 Gulf War.  There's no mention of non-Middle Eastern terrorism, nor is there any detail or good information given about much of anything, really.  I've moved the section from the article to here so that either it can be improved, or at least be out of the article.  --Mr. Billion 04:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recruitment for any organization still has a very common foundation. Criminal and terrorist organizations still require some measure of "proof" in order to be able to believe that someone is not an infiltrator. Additionally, the higher up in the organization an individual goes, the greater the proof that is required (in well-organized groups). The exception to this is in cellular organizations (al-Qaeda falls into this category) where there is only a single central authority with wide distribution of information--information which can be smuggled through a variety of different means. Cutting off the head of such an organization might certainly cause a splintering, but the desired effect of causing the organization to crumble from within would effectively result in two organizations with different aims (in effect two sets of cellular groups), called the "Hydra Effect" after the serpent of Greek mythology. Recruitment, therefore, is a careful screening process resulting in far fewer numbers than anyone would give credit to believe, with regard to organizational leadership. It is, in fact, very difficult to gauge how many are in an organization when the organization itself doesn't keep any kind of record about this, and basically anyone who upholds its aims and which claims an alliance in such an organization cannot be verified. However, in organizations that do keep tabs on their members (even if only verbal tabs), contact networks can usually verify and authenticate the activities of its members with a fair amount of speed. In addition, higher levels typically know more about an organization's operation, whereas foot solders tend to simply follow orders until their superiors need replacing. And a foot soldier typically cannot be distinguished from a superior simply by sight. Thus, terrorist organizations are free to recruit from within other organizations, and even from within prisons, schools, etc., without the recruit ever knowing that they'd been recruited. Terrorist recruitment follows an ideal that is very different from other criminal organizations in this respect, and operates more like an intelligence agency. --Red Heron 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recruitment" section 

message: I dont know who did it, but starting an article with "The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial" is about as amateurish an edit as Ive ever seen. It's a bit disappointing to see actually, considering the work I and others have put into the article over the last few years. Thanks, newbies. -Ste|vertigo 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you fix it? thejabberwock 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I incorporated the old intro; it's definitely better. TheJabberwock 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crummy edits 

message: This "Approved terrorists" section is not very clear as what it is saying. It needs to define what is meant by "approved terrorists" and be clearer in how this effected the anti-terror legislation that would ban verbal support of terrorists. --Cab88 02:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  approved terrorists section 

message: I think that there is a compromise position between the two extremes of Jayjg's version and that of GregorB. Instead of having a revert war, let me try to take just the NPOV parts of both and make a better article. I am in the middle of doing that. I ask both sides to please let me finish before deciding it is acceptable. --65.133.151.1 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any "version". The article was completely re-written yesterday, in a highly POV way, by a sockpuppet.  Previous to that the article had been in a stable state for months.  You haven't compromised, you've merely reverted to a POV re-write. Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with most of the "compromises" you've made. You've taken it back almost entirely to Jayjg's version (yes, that is the "Jayjg approved" version) already. Still you say that you are "in the middle" of making the compromise? What is left, to revert the last two parts of GregorB's version? --4.237.2.137 15:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly a "Jayjg approved" version.  I didn't write any of it; it was written and agreed to by multiple other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I note your latest revert edit summary claims this article is "Jayjg/JPGordon/Slimvirgin Jewish propaganda like everything else they control"? I see your claim that there was "nothing personal" in your original revert was, in fact, completely false.  Banned editors are not allowed to edit; please stop. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your excuse for reverting this article back to your version, locking the page, and banning the editor representing the other side of the dispute was "banned anti-semitic editor editing." The editor you banned never said anything against your faith. He only pointed out that your edits seemed to him to be "Jewish propaganda." How exactly is accusing you of something "anti-semitic?" --65.145.31.236 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, the banned editor himself is well-known.  Next, please recall, I do not have a "version" of this article, nor have I made edits to it; I've just reverted non-consensus POV changes.  In addition, I didn't "revert to my version then lock it"; rather, I semi-protected the version that was currently in place.  Regular editors can still edit it. And finally, why on earth would "Jewish propaganda" come into it, anyway?  Why bring up alleged Jews at all, some of whom have never even edited this article?  The banned editor was alleging something about specific editors, not about the article. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The banned editor is well-known? You semi-protected the version in place? That sounds like something out of a B Nazi film. "He is well-known to the SS as a subversive and a threat to the fatherland. We have not locked the document; we have only semi-protected it against editors who have not proven their loyalty to the Fuhrer." --65.145.31.236 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want an answer to your question about why the editor brought up Jewish propaganda at all, you would have to ask the editor. Except that you can't, because you banned him. --65.145.31.236 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking through your contributions and the history of this article, it appears that you and Jpgordon do this song and dance quite frequently. Jpgordon reverts the article to the one you clearly prefer and then you immediately lock or "semi-protect" it saying, "I just locked the current version." It looks like you often get this Slimvirgin, that 4.237.2.137 was talking about, into the act too. I have to admit, you're quite a showman. Now how about letting somebody else take a crack at editing this article? --65.145.31.236 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what article history you imagine you've looked at. Contrary to your claims, I've never semi-protected this article before, I have not banned the IP who was blathering about "Jewish propaganda", so he can certainly explain himself, and I'd already contacted a half-dozen editors with interest in the article to comment on it before semi-protecting.  The last time I touched this article was twice on Feb 21, 2006, the last time before that was once on October 27, 2005, and once before that one October 14 2005, once on Sept. 19, etc.  I am, in fact, letting everyone else "have a crack" at editing this article, since I've barely edited it, and have added no content.  Now, why don't you get your facts straight, and use the Talk: pages for discussing content rather than attacking other editors. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editors of Wikipedia can look through your contributions and determine for themselves how often this same scenario happens, but they don’t have to go very far to see what you did this time. You had a disagreement over content with another editor. That other editor was willing to compromise, listen to the suggestions of other people and try to reach a consensus, but you weren’t. You used your position to control the definition of this term. --63.153.31.224 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the many falsehoods in your previous statements, your current ones have no credibility.  "That other editor" (4.237.xxx.xxx) was spouting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and gave no indication he was willing to compromise.  As for you, there's no reason why you can't propose changes on the Talk: page, is there?  Please start discussing article content. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive POV Rewrite 

message: I see this article has no picture. I found this  that could be put in the text so it becomes better. The problem is that I can't manage to out it in right. This is just a reminder so that somebody else could put it in. --NorwegianMarcus 12:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also had trouble with this. The 'terrorism' box seems to mess up the formatting. Unfortunately, none of the other pages that use the box have lead images, so there's no standard on how to have both the box and an image. Is there a way to edit the box? It might work better as a bottom-oriented box. At any rate, I think that an image of the 9/11 attack would be a bit too obvious, would present a highly American view of terrorism, and would probably just set off all sorts of debate. I had planned to use the first image on the page for Black September, because the Munich Massacre was an international crisis, as well as a pivotal event in the emergence of modern terrorism.
Well, that's what we have on -no. NorwegianMarcus 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I think the first two paragraphs are loaded with inaccuracies.
:Paragraph 1
:The term terrorism is used to refer to acts of violence, or the threat of violence carried out for political motives by organisations/individuals who are not recognised as organs of the legitimate state within a given territory nor officially at war with that territory.
 
Does not this definition mean that all those who fought as rebels in the American War of Independence were terrorists ("We must hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately")? What is an "official war". Does this make the 2003 invasion of Iraq an act of terror? As the United states had declared a "War on Terror" is that an official war? The US adminstation think that people they hold under the War Powers Act are  "enemy combatants". So and do acts of violence are carried out by an enemy combatant in the territory of the U.S.A do not count as terrorism as they are part of an "official war"?
Further is there not a contradiction to the first paragraph created by Article 1. Paragraph 4 of GC Protocol I and should that not be mentioned?
:Paragraph 2
:"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard for human life." The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to the definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
Who are "civilians"? Are police civilians? What about part time police like the old B Specials in Northern Ireland. What about territorial soldiers can they only be targeted at the weekend when they are in uniform?  Was the murder of Airey Neave by the INLA a terrorist attack or an legitimate attack on part of the command and control of the British security forces?
The IRA targeted the City of London it to very large truck bombs (we are talking more than 10 tonnes of explosives in each bomb). These were made to do billions of pounds of damage so that the insurance companies despite political pressure would not pay out, this forced the British Government to pay for the damage, and so in a round about way acknowledge that the British state was in an armed conflict with the IRA. In both cases warnings were given. The intention of the attacks was not to kill people but to destroy the infrastructure of the City of London, The British press called these terrorist attacks, but the attack was not an "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard for human life." so does this mean that Wikipedia is claiming that targeting civilian infrastructure is not terrorism?
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article does not bring any clarity to the points I have raised above and as such is not of any use because it appears to be a defintion (quotes and all) but on closer examination does not say anything.
The last sentence does not make sense unless one qualifies the word "actors" as "enemy actors" after all one does not usually call "Freedom fighters" terrorists. --PBS 13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever heard the expression "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? In case you don't know, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, and this is part of the reason why. In one of the notes in Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill quips "[...] political effectiveness rather than the use of violence is the defining characteristic underlying official use of the term [terrorism]." The Ungovernable Force 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I have and Yes I do, and Ward Churchill's quip misses out the word "enemy" in front of "political effectiveness", friends who are politically effective don't often get called terrorists.  --PBS 11:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: What is the purpose of this opening monologue. Was this slipped in at the last minute or has this been a long-standing section? savidan(talk) (e@) 20:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Problems" section 

message: :However, historically, neither the the term "insurgency" nor "terrorism" was used by Colonial England to describe the behavior of its American colonies during the Revolutionary War. 
I would imagine that they were described as traitors. and that was a in the minds of the English at the time was a far more heinous crime than murder, hence the punishment for high treason (HDQ). At the Nuremberg trials no one was tried and found guilty of genocide, they were found guilty of "crimes against humanity". This does not stop most articles on the subject describing the Holocaust as an act of genocide. Is there any evidence that "insurgency" or "terrorism" were used in contemporary English to describe the actions of rebels of not then this sentence should go. --PBS 11:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is further complicated by the complex legal framework within which the American Revolution was framed (see Declaration of Independence) and international aid and acknowledgment (from France. 
What does this mean? A UDI is not a complex legal framework. If independence is achived, it becomes a legal document (at least in the eyes of the new state), but few would argue that Smith's Rodesian UDI was legal or complex. --PBS 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American war of independence

message: it seems that both articles can be expanded; merging would create a semantic confusion --Ayanoa 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging ? 

message: This must be one of the most messy articles in the whole of Wikipedia. Of course, this is a reflection of the difficulty of the subject and of the diversity of views that exist, but even so I think something needs to be done.
One problem is that irrelevant material keeps creeping in. One third of the opening section on "Problems" is now devoted not to problems but to a discussion of the American revolution. In the following section on "Etymology," the reader has to get through six paragraphs of discussion and official definitions before getting to the etymology. Then there are references to 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c), and the Strategic Foresight Group meeting in New Delhi, neither of which have anything to do with etymology either. In fact, of 15 paragraphs in this section, I would say that only three actually deal with etymology!
Examples are meant to help clarify. But all too often in this article they lead to qualifications which then confuse. Fortunately, no one (so far!) has felt obliged to jump in to defend the Jacobin Club... But when we move on to the section on "Key Criteria," what starts as a simple statement about "Target" refers to the Irgun. So then we find a vaguely pro-Irgun statement followed by a vaguely anti-Irgun statement, and then of course someone has to mention Hamas... Ok, but what does all this add to anyone's understanding of the basic point that many think that targeting civilians is one of the key criteria?
I could go on. But I won't, because my key proposal is  to try to slim the article down and make it as concise as possible by removing irrelevant discussions and including examples only if (a) they genuinely help and (b) are sufficiently generally accepted not to give rise to off-topic discussions. Any support for this idea? Deleted material could be put somewhere else--for example, a short disucssion of "Terrorism in the American revolution" or even "50 U.S.C. § 1801(c)." Mark Sedgwick 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody feels like responding to this proposal? I've just looked at "terrorism" articles in some other language versions of Wikipedia, and they're all much better than the English one... If there was some encouragement, I'd be happy to edit the current version of this article down to the minimum and post a draft here for discussion. Mark Sedgwick 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is to be done? 

message: 'Problems' is actually not too bad a header after all. -- max rspct leave a message  23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: header

message: Terrorism is the idea that terror can be used as a compelling means of coercion.
First, terrorism is not an idea. The idea of terrorism is an idea.
Second, coercion implies a compelling force.
Third, if I pull a gun on you to get your money, this will satisfy the definition, but it will not be terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skovoroda (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 June 2006
:As an aside, Skovoroda, you can sign your messages by typing "~~~~", which turns into a signature with your username and the time of the message. That way people know who's saying what. --Mr. Billion 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skovoroda: the definition holds true, and I would say that all criminal activity is terrorism in one form or another. The difference is one of scale: if one person is involved against another, it's an interpersonal dispute. If it involves entire countries, it's a war. If it involves only political groups, then the result is terrorism. Thus, groups that commit hate crimes (KKK, IRA, neo-Nazis, al-Qaeda, etc.) are terrorist organizations because they engage in activities that fit the definition cited above. Can you suggest a more compelling definition? -Red Heron 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your definition

message: Having to take usage into account, we can, I think, distinguish a core sense -- the one I am proposing, and extended senses. 
1. The core sense is the terrorizing of civilians for political and ideological ends.
2. One extended sense has to include Russian terrorists targeting the government.
3. Another has to include cases like the Irgun targeting the military.
4. Perspectical senses: from the perspective of an established governments, all attacks against its military and government are terrorist acts. But from the perspective of those trying to topple the government -- their acts sgsinst the government and military are acts of war.
5. Borderline cases: since some civilian jobs help to maintain the military and the government, when these are targetted it is not clear what to call such acts. Bombing a telephone exchange center, for example, to disrupt communication.
Skovoroda 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one way that the word is used, but not the only way. Max rspct has the article start with the broadest meaning and work its way toward specific uses like the one defined by the United States Department of Defense that you mention. According to the Wikipedia manual of style, that's the way articles are supposed to read. I don't mean any disrespect by reverting your contribution. I just think that following the manual of style, the way Max rspt had it, makes for better articles. --Tammy Wise 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary or Core Sense and Extended Senses

message: I reverted this edit , in the hopes that we could make it more NPOV and keep it. Thoughts? btw, does anyone know why the talk page is protected but not the article?--Chaser T 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a scholar on this subject, but I am curious to know whether or not selective assassinations could be reasonably construed as terrorism.  Also, some research into "The School of the Americas" and "Air America" may be of some help.  To wit, did either of these organizations serve to support terrorist activities?  As I said though, it's not my field.  I was "RA" (Regular Army).  Rklawton 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your experience gives you more knowledge than I have. Looking at the key criteria section of the article, targetting of civilians and motive to cause fear and mayhem both seem to be absent from the CI
Chaser, please explain why you think the examples are POV? I tried to make both as factual as I could. In any case, you should not revert contributions unless you are prepared to correct them pretty much immediately. Basically, what I think you're saying is, the history is so shoking to your political sensibilities that the history needs to be toned down, or else eliminated. I am restoring my contribution because (1) I think it's non-POV (2) you cannot remove it, fail to "correct it" and thereby suppress it forever. I.e. if it is POV, it's only get seen and edited if it's up. --JustFacts 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted removal of reference to US as state sponsor 

message: In the article it says the state-department of the USA described the Contras as terrorists. However, everything I can find has the US government hailing them as heroes. For example (I know this isn't a great source but it does have a quote on it attributed to Ronald Regan: 
"moral equivalent of our founding fathers." GiollaUidir 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contras/US Section

message: There was a mayor bombing in 1989 in colombia during the drug lords era, more specifically, the bombing ocurred in a business centre and shopping mall in Bogotá called "Centro 93" (still an important place despite being almost destroyed, it was reconstructed and now part of a cosmopolitan zone in Bogotá). According to the Wikipedia List of terrorist incidents, the bombing was made with a truck bomb and killed 52 people and injured a 1,000. Can this be concidered an example of a major incident?
Minako-Chan* 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so! and we want aas much range in "causes",groups,locations and times on here so as to be more NPOV through more information.Hypnosadist 00:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  incidents in colombia 

message: The article itself says it does not qualify as terror and here its said its terror? I think the Cole can be exchanged with a better fitting example like the bombing of the embassy.--Stone 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stone, the attack on the USS Cole, while it was a cowardly sneak attack, it was not, in my opinion, a "terrorist" attack.  The USS Cole is a military vessel of the United States Navy and would be considered a legitimate target in any war.  This attack is probably more correctly defined as a jihadist suicide attack; therefore it should be removed from this article in favor of another example that better fits the criteria, like the bombing of the London Underground, where civilians were targeted. -- Britcom 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately an act of war not terrorism.Hypnosadist 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Cole

message: What happened?  A relatively new user -- editing for about a week -- changes the name of this page without any discussion because he wants to focus on individual terrorists?  I haven't been active on this page a while but am I the only one seeing a problem with this?  And now, of course, it is impossible to move the page back.  I note based on the user's edits, he has a fascination with notable killers and murderers - that is all fine, but this article was about terrorism, not about individual terrorists, and nobody had a problem with the title until now.  Now what is the procedure for getting the name changed back?  Unless the consensus agrees with Space ghost?--csloat 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change? 

message: Terrorists and Terrorism → Terrorism – move it back to Terrorism. … Rationale: Superfluous. Ericd 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per WP:NAME and WP:MOS. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
This is a huge problem with wikipedia that a troublemaker can come change the name of the article without discussion and then it cannot be changed back without an admin intervening after a discussion and vote.  It should be as easy or difficult to change the article in the first place as it is to change it back. *sigh*--csloat 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In general, it can be moved back (if the redirect doesn't have history). The problem here is that other people were fixing the redirect for spelling and something minor, instead of reverting it back. A guy has been kicked off the Wikipedia (can't recall his username) for page moves to the names that suited him, then purposefully touching the redirect so that it's irrevertible without an admin. Duja 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that this is a "huge problem" procedurally.  From one perspective it's very good.  Once the poll is taken the issue can be considered closed, which preemptively eliminates the possibility that the article will be moved back and forth by individuals until the whole thing becomes a major dispute. Isomorphic 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not support the move. It should stay stuck at this title. --TheM62Manchester 09:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per WP:NAME and WP:MOS. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
This is a huge problem with wikipedia that a troublemaker can come change the name of the article without discussion and then it cannot be changed back without an admin intervening after a discussion and vote.  It should be as easy or difficult to change the article in the first place as it is to change it back. *sigh*--csloat 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, it can be moved back (if the redirect doesn't have history). The problem here is that other people were fixing the redirect for spelling and something minor, instead of reverting it back. A guy has been kicked off the Wikipedia (can't recall his username) for page moves to the names that suited him, then purposefully touching the redirect so that it's irrevertible without an admin. Duja 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that this is a "huge problem" procedurally.  From one perspective it's very good.  Once the poll is taken the issue can be considered closed, which preemptively eliminates the possibility that the article will be moved back and forth by individuals until the whole thing becomes a major dispute. Isomorphic 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not support the move. It should stay stuck at this title. --TheM62Manchester 09:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This section fails to mention terrorist groups funded and directly aided by the CIA, such as those throughout Latin America, the harboring of anti-Cuban terrorists in Miami, and terrorist actions perpetrated by the Israeli government against the Palestinians, and, more recently, the Lebanese population.Smitty Mcgee 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State Terrorism

message: i propose deleting embargoes in the list of examples for state terrorism. if this is controversial, maybe that could be discussed in the state terrorism article which does not mention embargoes. --trueblood 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  embargoes as state terrorism? 

message: I second the recommendation to remove this material.  It don't see its relevance.--Motorsportsmark 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree free up room for more important information and wikilinks.Hypnosadist 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Five Stage Process 

message: Although there is a link to a more in-depth article, the summary section given here is ridiculously biased.  It lists Islamic extremist groups and communist-backed groups as examples of state terrorism, but fails to mention American or Israeli terrorism.  This would seem to be a necessary counter-point to the argument presented here.Smitty Mcgee 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias under State Terrorism

message: Perhaps this article should be protected. There seems to be a history of spam, nonsense and racist rubbish being posted on here. Blowski 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect? 

message: "Terrorists are g**d*m muslim and islamic loonys who are a**holes and should all die!!!! GET THE F**K OUTTA OUR COUNTRY!!!"
I'm not entirely sure how this site works, but...that guy should be warned.
*Nevermind, it appears he has already been warned previously for removing information from the terrorist page. He's already been warned. Perhaps some bannination should be done? =P67.33.141.71 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism