Talk:Terrorism/Archive 12

message: * Please change link to Dr. Record's publication "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism". Three years ago we switched the names of our files and are about to delete the old files. 
New link: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207
Old Link: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf
Also, it might be useful to link directly to our terrorism studies, which are, like the above, free to the public.
Strategic Studies Institute Global War on Terrorism Studies 144.99.8.10 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Links 

message: Currently, at least when I view the page, it doesn't seem to render properly. This is with Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Mac OS X, and it doesn't seem to happen with other WP pages. I think the problem is in the  template, because it looks fine if that's removed. I'm not sure how to fix it, but right now the page is terrifically ugly. --Kadin2048 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I think I fixed it ... someone had (apparently) vandalized the Template:Terrorism page. --Kadin2048 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML Problems 

message: Not sure how to start this list but there are people who have admitted they are terrorists, as for example United States General William Yarborough.  This info is found in Noam Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival, p192n9
    Here's another, for what it's worth. http://www.noobomg.com/83 Cheezmeister (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to self-described Terrorists? 

message: It is surprising that terrorism in Kashmir does not find enough mention.--Darrendeng 09:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the attacks listed at Terrorism in Kashmir are on this page.  There's not enough room in this article to go into detail about terrorist aspect of every conflict in the world; that's why there's a separate article for "Terrorism in Kashmir".  Hopefully there are adequate navigational links to help readers who are interested find more info about any given aspect of terrorism.  If not, anyone is free to try to improve them. -- Beland 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir 

message: As previously recommended, I've split "Tactics of terrorism" off into its own article.  The main article is down to 34K, which is reasonable for now. -- Beland 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: I have removed the "NPOV" and "Globalize/USA" tags from the top of this article, as it has made significant progress from previous versions, I have just re-written the introduction, and nothing jumps out at me as particularly USA-centric anymore.  However, perhaps some of you do see room for improvement.  If so, could you please tag a specific section or statement that needs attention, or make a specific suggestion on the talk page?  Hopefully that will help stabilize the article and focus efforts on improvement.
I removed two rather vague tasks from the todo list:
* Remove morality judgments
* Determine how to discuss "terrorists" without being pejorative
If anyone has any specific complaints in these areas, elucidating those would be helpful for further improvement. -- Beland 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I simply cannot understand why people have such trouble being objective about terrorism.  What is so difficult about acknowledging that a cause with which one sympathizes may be shared by terrorists?  (Is there any popular cause which has not at one time or another been supported through terrorism?)  What is so difficult about discussing terrorists without feeling the need to assert one's disapproval?  (This latter seems particularly ridiculous.  It is like how nobody can talk about a murderer without showing their disapproval for murder.  Gee, aren't you a great moral leader for renouncing murder!  I'd never thought about it that way before!  I'll quit murdering right away now!)  To me, terrorism is as straightforward a concept as flanking.  —Jemmytc 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that terrorism was real enough (see Nicaragua v. United States, but I agree the above phrasing should be more precise.  -- DBooth 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and todo items 

message: The current article says 
:deliberately target "non-combatants"
What is a non-combatant? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A civilian - i.e. not a soldier, militiaman or other fighter, and someone who therefore cannot legitimately be shot at or bombed. Interestingly enough, the term combatant/non-combatant has interesting alternative definitions when viewed in relation to The War on Terror.... --JulesVerne 13:01, 29 January 2007 (GMT)
Is an off duty soldier a combatant or a non-combatant? Are civil servants who work in a ministry of defence combatants or non-combatants? Are civilian police officers combatants or non-combatants? 
If a soldier is constructing a sangar he is a combatant. But what if a civilian contractor is employed to construct the sangar? What about the person who fixes the digger that the civilian or soldier uses to build the sangar? What about the person in a machine shop who make the part that is needed by the person who fixes the digger, that is used by the civilian contractor build a sangar? The trouble with this simple definition is that the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant is not clear cut given the amount of civilian support which modern combat requires. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said, Philip!  -- DBooth 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be the motivation for such attacks on 'non-combatants' - if  we see violence as a consequence of a battle of ideologies, then everyone is involved, not just designated soldiers or 'combatants'. Hence 'unconventional' warfare. 203.164.167.15 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non-combatants

message: The citation is weak. It cites a study  (Jeffrey Record, "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism") that cites a book (Bruce Hoffman “Defining Terrorism,” ) that cites a book (Alex Schmid, et al. "Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature") that cites either the study or a book that cites the study (it is unclear at the moment). I left off with the [schmidt] citation if someone can track from there. I suspect its a political statement that biases original information. What is apparent from the secondary or tertiary source I tracked down is that it was survey work among experts and that the author was able to construct a defiintion that "81% of [expert] respondents found fully or partially acceptable". Mrdthree 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 109 definitions

message: A small comment: I believe that terrorism is too general a term to describe the different types of terrorism. Modern day terrorism and pre-9/11 terrorism are two very different things. Today, terrorism mainly is derived from islamist extremism ideology, with its goal being to destroy democracy and human rights of the west and to destroy Israel. I suggest the article be refined so that it reflect the fact that modern day terrorism and pre-9/11 terrorism are completely different things. This site here gives a little more information about modern-day terrorism in the middle east: linkBen339 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Wikipedia articles should be neutral POV.  -- DBooth 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying you need to change the POV.  Differentiating between modern day terrorism and pre-9/11 terrorism does not change the point of view.  All that is needed is a simple comment linking to religious terrorism saying that this is about pre-9/11 terrorism and religious terrorism is completely different.Ben339 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about terrorism in general -- both pre- and post-9/11 -- so of course it is broad.   Claiming that there is a significant difference between pre- and post-9/11 terrorism seems to me to reflect a POV that is biased by your own particular criteria of what differences you think are important -- above and beyond the criteria that distinguishes terrorism from other acts.  Furthermore, claiming that "Today, terrorism mainly is derived from islamist extremism ideology, with its goal being to destroy democracy and human rights of the west" reflects an extremely biased POV.  You can be sure that even islamic extremists would not characterize the goal of their jihad that way, but would more likely characterize it as righting or revenging wrongs or evil that they see, which, BTW, you can be sure is different than their enemies see, because their perspectives are different.  It isn't easy to write articles that are neutral POV, but as much as possible it should be attempted.  -- DBooth 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with DBooth 100%. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see both of your points 100%.  I am glad that now there is a sidebar which gives a link to information on different kinds of terrorism, that was all I wanted... Ben339 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern-Day Terrorism 

message: Should add a link to Economic terrorism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philogik (talk • contribs) 07:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic terrorism 

message: Please add an interwiki link for Croatian. I cannot, because the article is protected.
Code: 
hr:Terorizam
Thanks. --89.172.63.165 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --JohnnoShadbolt 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki for Croatian (hr) 

message: Colombia is poorly mentioned (see the very red spot in the map of terrorist acts?)--((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colombia 

message: Please add Latin language interwiki: 
  la:Tromocratia 
Thanks 71.208.225.146 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --h2g2bob (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: interwiki for Latin (la)

message: Under the section "Types of Terrorism" there is nothing listed about the violent religous fanatical terrorism which was experienced on 9/11 for example. I believe that should be listed.  WacoJacko 10:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any input here?WacoJacko 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That technically falls under political terrorism, unless it is expressly for the benefit of the terrorists in which case it becomes non-political terrorism. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of Terrorism

message: I  propose that we remove this list. It is next to impossible to create such a list that does not contain a bias by the editors who edit this page and even with good faith edits, it will still tend to have the Wikipedia systemic bias. The list is also in breach of WP:OR and WP:V (not just the individual entries) but also the collation of such information into a list of "major" incidents. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Examples make sense when it is necessary to clarify the concept. Here it is enough to put  List of terrorist incidents into the "See also" section or incorporate it into the text.  `'Míkka 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded and carried out. bobanny 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of major incidents 

message: I wanna edit. byurbyur 00:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how long has this been protected? 

message: Captured Pakistani soldiers are being tortured on video, and the footage is being propagated back to the Pakistanis.  Surely, this is terrorism—not for the torture, of course, but for the use of the footage.  I don't mean to assert my personal opinion here—rather, I mean that, surely, the vast majority of people would identify this as terrorism, in the ordinary usage, as exactly the same tactic as (say) murdering soldiers' wives.  So—combatant status is irrelevant to terrorism, no?  The attack is not against combatant qua combatant, but against combatant qua example.  The soldier is captured; the torture serves only and exactly the military purpose of terror. —Jemmytc 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly does rendition and torture deter suicide bombers? My mind flashes to the idea {that the thought of crucifixion did not deter the Judean People's Front, crack suicide squad} --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism against combatants 

message: There are lots of links to the wiki violence page here.  However, as you can see at Talk:Violence, the problem is that a non-registered editor over last couple years keeps trying to promote a narrow, left wing (black bloc oriented) theory of violence.  I.E. that smashing physical things is NOT violent, and harming people UNintentionally while smashing things is NOT violent.   He tries to use abstruse left wing theorists as his references while rejecting using a wider definition of violence with various dictionary references.
No one else is chiming in and I don't feel like getting in a revert/edit war with this guy.  So if some level headed wiki editors committed to NON-POV want to get in there and opine, feel free.  
The last definition he deleted wasn't perfect and was put in before I listed the dictionary definitions on the talk page.  So feel free to put a good one together using those or other more neutral sources.  Otherwise I'll do so myself and, if necessary, appeal to whomsoever one appeals to in such situations where only two editors opine and they disagree.  Thanks! (Also, note the whole article itself is pretty messy, but who has time to clean up everything one wants to on wikipedia?)
Carol Moore 15:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of discussion seems to be quite reasonable at the moment and congratulations for your efforts to keep it that way. I made a minor edit (spelling) and will keep the page on watch, but I may not be able to help it towards what you would see as NPOV. Since the page is High importance for the Sociology wikiproject, and only Start-class, then it should be possible to enlist a number of the members of that project to help. Leave a message on their project page explaining why it is important to get the page up to at least GA, preferably FA. They will all like to show off their knowledge of obscure sources though, that's what sociology is for. ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Help on Wiki Violence Page

message: I moved the reference to pig lard as a deterrent to the Counter-terrorism page.Not home (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to pig lard