Talk:Terrorism/Archive 6

message: ::The introduction is propaganda.  It is the part that I, and so many other people, have voiced a problem with.  It is not objective.  It does not convey any meaningful information.  It is written from an extreme POV stated as fact that fails to even mention Webster's definition that we've been using for the past two hundred years.  The current definition assumes a pejorative stance toward the term and blatantly references biased sources for its most fundamental descriptions.  It is, by far, the worst introduction of any major definition in Wikipedia and, arguably, the most important since we are waging a war on "terrorism."  --Zephram Stark 21:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Arguments 

message: Terrorism is entirely distinct from other types of -ism, because it is used exclusively in a third-party context, and because no-one self-identifies as a terrorist. Additionally, as the intro does point out, it is used exclusively with negative connotations. It usually also implies a negative moral judgement. If all these 4 points are recognised, then it is possible to construct a non-controversial definition of terrorism, because what is being described is 100% attributive and judgemental. What the introduction needs is a description of what is usually said about terrorism, especially in the most relevant context of government policy. The best starting points are the western government definitions, not because they are necesarily true, but because they have the most impact on what happens in the real world.
It is a fact that the US has an anti-terrorism policy, and it is a fact that they regard Al-Qaeda as terrorists, and it is a fact that they use a definition of terrorism for that purpose. So what is controversial about quoting this definition, and others such as the EU definition, and attempting to distil their common elements? It will end up with something like the current list anyway, because those are indeed the recurring themes in many definitions.
Ruzmanci 15:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you said, but Zephraim has convinced me that we do need a fairly simple narrow definition such as the OED's, just to show what the current confusion grew out of. Of course, you are right that even this definition was used with derogatory implications that were not contained in the definition itself. – Smyth\talk 16:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving the definition problem 

message: ... but this may take the gold medal.
* "Please make further edits to only your side of the argument. If you can’t understand the other's claim, you can’t edit it."
Are there any other NPOV disputes you plan on "solving" in this manner? Can you warn us ahead of time, so we can be sure to dodge the shrapnel? BrandonYusufToropov 16:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just trying to make the intro of Terrorism NPOV, Brandon.  If there is any shrapnel, it isn't coming form me.  --Zephram Stark 18:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I know, I would be annoyed if it wasn't so ridiculous. "Here ends the NPOV dispute" indeed. – Smyth\talk 16:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anyone who thinks my last article wasn't NPOV, I would like to hear why.  I think it was the first article that gave both sides a voice.  --Zephram Stark 18:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Not eager to be the punching bag on this one. Can someone else please revert it? BrandonYusufToropov 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've seen a lot of high-handed edits in the last year ... 

message: Whatever definition gets worked out, the box has got to go.  Only one editor is advocating for it, and thankfully it seems gone for the moment.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave off the box

message: Please read Wikipedia writers' rules of engagement and compare that to what you see admins doing in this section.  Please note that an admin is bound by exactly the same rules as everyone else.  Admins are not here to manage us.  Wikipedia was created in such a way that nobody can gain power over another person.  Everyone here is equal in their editing power.  Every person in Wikipedia is responsible to every other person.  When you see an admin trying to abuse his power, as you see here, you have every right to remind him that he plays by the same rules of engagement as everyone else.  If the people involved in the exhaustive editing of an article have agreed to propose changes in talk before submitting them to the article, and a trouble maker brings a couple of friends by and disrupts that process, continuously reverts the article in defiance of everyone else, and refuses to propose any constructive solutions, they are the problem whether they claim to have special powers or not.  Don't let anyone tell you different.  At Wikipedia, everyone has an equal voice.  --Zephram Stark 03:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of Admins who think they are above the Rules of Engagement

message: Look, Zeph, we cannot make this page better or more precise if we are constantly distracted by your idiotic reversion to a version of the page that everyone else agrees is bogus.  So please lay off, and concentrate on edits that actually improve the quality of the page rather than introducing vocabulary that nobody in their right mind has ever used. --csloat 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO, I'm not doing it.  If you know anything about IPs, you can easily trace them and know that these are coming from users of Wikipedia all over the world.  I traced a couple to Australia and New Zealand even.  People think your definition is shit.  Accept it.  --Zephram Stark 18:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeph you are on drugs.  You keep referring to your idiosyncratic crap as "the definition we worked on for months".  Who is "we"?  You and your imaginary friends who run around talking about "FISA-terrorism"?  "Gee, looks like there was a pejorative-terrorist attack in Jordan today."  Get a grip.  If your anon IP friends are really different people why don't they add to the discussion page or ever add a note to the edit summary when they revert? --csloat 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Who else besides you contributed anything to that definition? Who is "we"?  Please name them. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody who said anything in the five pages of discussion contributed to that definition.  For instance, Smyth researched State Terrorism and contributed the part that it included terrorism of the population of another government.  Please feel free to read through the discussions if you want to see the detail of how that definition was built.  --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zephram, I think it's rather absurd to say that your definiton is preferred by "Regular users from all around the planet...". These users are sockpuppets. I don't know whose sockpuppets they are, but it's quite certain that they're not legit users. You're not helping your case by touting their preferences. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really easy, Carbonite.  You just go to any IP search and type in the IP.  It tells you where that user is, what service they use, and many other things about them.  There actually are people who use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you know.  There's a whole world out there beyond your little loyal admin fun bunch.  --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeph - I can just picture you sitting in the middle of an empty computer lab with a sock over each hand and talking to your little sockpuppets saying "If I keep saying over and over that there are other people who use these ridiculous neologisms someone will believe me."  This is such a waste of time.  I don't understand why this isn't in the definitions of terrorism article anyway.  The message is clear that the users who actually care enough about wikipedia to explain their edits all agree that your contributions add nothing to the discussion.  Also, don't put up the bogus line that your edits conform to my suggestions -- what I said was, we can talk about terrorism as defined by FISA (or a myriad other laws for that matter) but I did not say just change the name (and then keep the name further down where you talk about the ludicrous notion of "FISA-terrorism" again).  I'm sorry Zeph but this is all bullshit.  You are editing in bad faith and your IP (and those of your sockpuppets) should be blocked.  --csloat 19:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL @ sockpuppets.  You crack me up.  Are you suggesting that I say "terrorism as defined by FISA" every time I refer to it?  Is that what you think the state department does?  I don't know if you guys are trying to hide the definition of terrorism or just so paranoid over that N.Y. Post thing that you don't want to define anything any more, but I do know that your version of terrorism doesn't convey information, and that's what definitions are supposed to do.  --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What the State Department says can be very easily determined by reading some of their publications.  It's pretty clear what the State Department does not say.  I am happy to have us work on the introduction to more clearly define terrorism, but not by making up artificial lingo to satisfy your bizarre taxonomical fetish.  (Should we also speak of "PATRIOT-terrorism" to describe the definition from the USA PATRIOT Act?  How about "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996-terrorism" or "AEDPA-terrorism" for short?  Is someone who commits "pejorative terrorism" a "pejorative terrorist"?)  I also wish you would actually read the definitions of terrorism page and suggest there additions such as FISA's definition rather than demanding that your silliness be featured at the top of this page. --csloat 19:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see by our discussions, we've been over that extensively.  We are well aware of the issues, but thank you for bringing your great brain into the discussion at this late date and enlightening us.  Perhaps your great brain can give us a solution too?  All we ask is that the definition convey information.  When we use the term, we want the person who hears the word to visualize the same thing we mean.  I think the definition we created did that quite well, but we wait with eager trepidation the much better solution you will give us.  After all, a brain as big as yours should be able to, in a few minutes, capture the usage of the term better than we could in months.   --Zephram Stark 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, Zeph, my big brain is still not big enough to actually find any evidence of "months of discussion" or of other parties who share your fantasies of overcompartmentalization.  Can you please point me to the "months of discussion"?  Can you point me to your no doubt insightful input to the definitions of terrorism page?  Can you point me to all the experts and everyday wikipedians who have participated in the discussion and who were sources for the definition? --csloat 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop the crap