Talk:Terrorism/Archive 9

message: ::(Please note that the "current article" mentioned in the following discussion indeed "got better" thanks, in large part, to the extensive rewrites of User:Hipocrite and User:Stevertigo.  --Zephram Stark 15:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why not use two articles if they mean different things? --Black Angus 19:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A bunch of definitions without a common introduction sounds like a disambiguation page to me.  It's true that when there are multiple definitions without anything in common, a disambiguation page is the only way to go, but I think everyone here would rather see something simple like "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror" than a disambiguation page.  --Zephram Stark 21:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the article getting better? 

message: Could someone explain to me at what point in time did a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to back it up qualify as "flimsy"? . Or has policy remained unchanged and someone is simply trying to defend their POV pushing with a rather loose interpretation of policy? FuelWagon 14:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use a linguist in an article on terrorism just as I wouldn't use a counter-terrorism expert in an article on generative grammar. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you simply read Noam Chomsky, it says "Chomsky is also widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments." Now, you can argue the accuracy of that article, but I'm sure I can find a number of non-wikipedia URL's that support the notion that Noam Chomsky is a notable figure known for his political activism, and as such that makes him a qualified source for this article. OK, that excuse didn't work, time to shift tactics and come up with a completely different one. FuelWagon 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the ad hominem comments and concentrate on content. Chomsky is a highly partisan, non-expert source. I haven't reverted you because I want to wait to see what the other editors on the page think, as I may be in the minority, but I oppose using him as an expert source on anything other than the area he's an expert in. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky's relevant observation would probably best fit into the category of "dangerous information."  We could do a side by side comparison of "terrorism" to "low-intensity conflict," as Chomsky suggests, but I think we all know that the result would be the same.  This quote is the best way to convey that unique and relevant information in the shortest amount of space.  Good job, FuelWagon.  --Zephram Stark 14:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to Wikipedia to "do a side by side comparison of "terrorism" to "low-intensity conflict,"". That would be considered original research. The fact is that Chomsky is not a terrorism expert and his opinions on terrorism are only appropriate for the Noam Chomsky article. Carbonite | Talk 14:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we are beyond the point of trying to hide dangerous information.  The fact that "Unconventional" or "Low-Intensity" warfare has almost exactly the same meaning as the U.S. Army, Webster, and OED definitions of terrorism isn't something that most people would like to get out because it begs the question, "What really is the difference between 'terrorism' and 'shock & awe?'"  Yet, readers want to explore the answer to that question.  Conveying relevant information is the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Now that people have the internet, we can't keep them from discovering the truth.  If we don't provide it at Wikipedia, readers will simply use another resource.    --Zephram Stark 14:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not about exploring answers to questions; it's about organizing facts from reliable outside sources. We don't include original research and we don't make our own conclusions. We present facts, not someone's opinion of "the truth". Carbonite | Talk 15:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: FuelWagon, please try to tone down the hostility of your reponses (or at least the last sentences of them). As for the Chomsky quote, I'm not sure how his activism qualifies him to speak on terrorism. Would Sean Penn or Cindy Sheehan also be qualified sources, since they're both notable activists? Carbonite | Talk 14:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The validity of Chomsky's opinion is irrelevant.  The Chomsky quote is merely an observation.  Readers of the article could make the same observation if they compared army manuals, but researching manuals is not why most people look up an encyclopedic references.  They want to read the results of the observation from an authoritative source.  Chomsky certainly has a reputation sturdy enough to make an authoritative observation.  --Zephram Stark 14:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is why do we include Chomsky's quote? Chomsky is not an expert on terrorism nor do I believe he's ever claimed to be. Why should Chomsky's quote be included, but not one from dozens of other sources? The argument seems to be that because he's notable and spoke about terrorism, his quote should be included in the article. That's just not logical. Carbonite | Talk 14:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: By the 1980's he had become both the most distinguished figure of American linguistics and one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy. He has been extremely prolific as a writer: his web-site in 2003 listed ... his political books ... exceeds 40. According to a 1992 tabulation of sources from the previous 12 years in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Chomsky was the most frequently-cited person alive, and one of the eight most frequently-cited authors of all time.
Would you care to try again? Perhaps you can compare Noam Chomsky to Paris Hilton. FuelWagon 15:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, please tone down your hostility. I'd prefer that this discussion be a bit more civilized. Thus far, your argument is that Chomsky is a notable critic of American foreign policy. I don't dispute that he is. What I dispute is that we should include his opinion in this specific article. Your evidence may be a bit dated (covering the time period of 1980-1992), but even assuming it's still accurate, are you saying that we should cite Chomsky because he's often cited? Again, that's just not a logical argument. I'm looking for a list of reasons why Chomsky's opinion on terrorism is so important that we should include in the article. Why not include the opinion of an actual terrorism expert? Carbonite | Talk 15:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hostility? Hey, man, you were the one who mentioned Sean Penn. Now that I come back with the same flippant attidute and mention Paris Hilton, you want to call it hostility. Sorry, it works both ways. If you can dish it out, be prepared to take some as well. As for the article, we should report all points of view around the topic in question. Apparently reporting the point of view held by those who think the US is a terrorist state missed that bit of NPOV policy. The quote was inserted with a URL because people kept deleting it. Controversial POV's should be quoted rather than paraphrased and URL's allow people to verify its accuracy. And stop playing the "expert" card. Noam Chomsky is notable and the above encyclopedia entry shows it. He is "one of the most influential critics of US foreign policy". How much more notable do you need? Given that his opinion is so influential, it should be reported. FuelWagon 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Sean Penn a noted (and by some respected) activist while Paris Hilton is, well, a ditz? I don't see a reference to activists to be out of line but I haven't heard about Paris Hilton's work.  What causes does she support and lobby for?  What disaster sites has she visited and worked as a volunteer? - Tεxτurε 16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Carbonite that including opinions from Chomsky without including opinions from other people is not logical.  That is why we are not including opinions.  We are including observations that anyone would make if they researched the items noted.  Chomsky's observations are highly relevant to the article.  They are undisputed.  They come from an authoritative observer, and they are concise.  That is a hell of a lot more than you can say for the rest of the article.  --Zephram Stark 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The short answer would be "no."  Einstein to God is not the same as Relevant, undisputed observation is to terrorism.  --Zephram Stark 16:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon, please leave the attitude problem at the door and concentrate on content. Carbonite's analogy to Sean Penn is a good one: he's a well known activist too, and was very active opposing the war against Iraq, but we don't quote him in our article about it — at least, I hope we don't. ;-) Chomsky isn't any kind of expert on terrorism, not even slightly. It isn't even his main interest as an activist. We could all name dozens of actors, musicians, columnists who would say the same thing, none of them experts either, but we're meant to use credible sources, and while Chomsky might be a credible source for some other articles, I don't see what he brings to this one. Texture's right: it would be like adding Einstein to God, or perhaps we could quote Richard Dawkins saying there's no such thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, please concentrate on NPOV policy. The article currently states the followign in the "State Terrorism" mentions Iran and Pakistan as specific examples of states that use terrorism. A notable and influential critic of US foreign policy has said the U.S. is an example of a state using terrorism. It is just another example of states using terrorism, except it's an unpopular view. But that it is a POV held by someone who is considered an influential critic of US foreign policy means that his view should be reported. Iran would dispute that they use terrorism. So would Pakistan. But we still list them as examples. Many would dispute that the US uses terrorism too, but it is just another point of view like the pov that Iran or pakistan use terrorism. FuelWagon 17:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Counter-terrorism experts say that the Iranian govt is a sponsor of terrorism (I don't know about Pakistan). If you want to accuse the U.S. govt of terrorism, or of sponsoring it (which is it?), you have to find a counter-terrorism expert who makes that claim, or a scholar in a very closely related field. Chomsky's claim has the status of uninformed gossip, and you're including it only because he's a celebrity, but he has zero expertise. If you want to stick to NPOV, then note that we don't include tiny-minority views. If the view that the U.S. is a terrorist state, or a state that sponsors terrorism, is a respectable significant-minority view, you'll be able to find a terrorism expert who has said it, and if you can't, you should let that tell you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you want to accuse the U.S. govt of terrorism" okey-dokey. here is the problem. I do not want to accuse anyone of anything here. Noam Chomsky is the one saying that the US uses terrorist behaviours. The only relevant question is whether that POV is worthy of being reported. There is no absolute list of all nations who are terrorists and everything not on the magic list is heresay. This is all just various points of view. The US state department has a point of view that Iran is a terrorist state. Iran would dispute that. As for Chomsky's point of view, given that the man is considered the most influential critic of US foreign policy, given that he's written something like 40 books on politics, given that he qualifies as notable in that respect, he has a point of view that deserves reporting. You are playing games with the definition of "expert" here simply to rule out points of view that you do not want to be reported. One does not have to be a counter-terrorism "expert" to have a point of view that deserves being reported. Sean Penn didn't publish 40 political books. Sean Penn isn't considered the most influential critic of US foreign policy. Whether you personally agree with his point of view, he is sufficiently notable in the field of foreign policy to have his point of view reported. FuelWagon 18:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Is there any balancing material for Chomsky's observation?  I've been looking, but I can't find anyone who thinks that the official U.S. Army definition of "terrorism" is different than the official U.S. Army definition of "Low-intensity warfare."  Both have intention as their central theme——same as President Bush's definition of terrorism——the purpose of which is to control the will of the enemy by threatening to make undesirable things happen, rather than to destroy his conventional forces.  --Zephram Stark 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: flimsy?

message: On the recent reverts regarding Chomsky: I think referencing 9/11 is POV in this context and the "War on Terrorism" is probably the correct reference.  "Critics of American foreign policy, like Professor" is similarly POV in that it implies a group of backers that are not substantiated.  (Not that there wouldn't be plenty.)  Instead of trying to expand the facts beyond the facts, how about:
:Political activist Noam Chomsky maintains that the USA qualifies as a state terrorist government. After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:
: ... the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state. ... The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same.  
- (I'm discussing here because a bunch of random edits masking a revert war is not productive.) Tεxτurε 21:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that you think "political activist" sounds more substantiated than "critics of American foreign policy?"  --Zephram Stark 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  "political activist" is a term applied to a single individual, Chomsky.  "critics of American foreign policy" applies to multiple individuals.  Who are they? I'd say keep this to the single activist you are quoting.- Tεxτurε 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Chomsky reverts 

message: As Ericd pointed out, in France people "agree that terrorism is related to terror."  This is akin to saying, "The Emperor has no clothes!"  It's blatantly obvious, but nobody wants to admit it.  Why?  Because it implicates us!!
Every one of us support a government that uses terror as a means of coercion.  This makes us unfit to edit an article on terrorism.  There is a blatant conflict of interest.  With a little bit of introspection, we have to admit that we've been jumping through a lot of hoops that are unnecessary.  "Terrorism" means nothing more than "terror" + "ism."  The top usage of ism is "doctrine."  Anything else, I'm afraid, is merely an attempt to vilify others while exonerating ourselves.  --Zephram Stark 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting take, but unfortunately it's also original research. However, if you'd like to recuse yourself from this article on the grounds that you're unfit to edit it, I personally have no objections. Carbonite | Talk 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think anyone who espouses a definition not consistent with "terror" + "ism" should recuse themselves due to their obvious bias.  The world's two most widely used English language resources, the Oxford English and Webster's International dictionaries, both define terrorism as "terror" combined with a commonly held form of "ism:" doctrine, political movement, action, process, etc.  --Zephram Stark 19:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Elephant Sitting at our Table 

message: []
Curious, BrandonYusufToropov 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder who this [[sockpuppet]] is 

message: The information can be cited without relabelling articles or making the section US-centric. The article is not copyright of homeland security. It is only a source of the information and not the source of the Wikipedia article or section. (We editors are) - Tεxτurε 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can fix the section, please feel free to add it back. As long as the content is original research and in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Words to avoid (because it labels events, and consequently, people terrorists/terrorism without citing the person making the claim), it has no place on Wikipedia.  --The Random Element 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What is the source that reports the 9-11 attacks as "the most deadly" in all history? I can think of some events that happened in other countries that may qualify as terrorism that might also qualify as genocide and would easily qualify as "the most deadly". Just wondering where that came from. FuelWagon 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And while we're at it, why are we reporting the "most deadly" attack, excluding state terrorism? This paragraph seems a little weird. FuelWagon 21:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all very westerncentric, but some of us easterners know English too. --The Random Element 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any other nations dispute the list contains acts which were not terrorist acts? I know the US State Department is a westernistic source, but does any nation dispute the US labels of these acts as being acts of terrorism? FuelWagon 21:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't talk for nations, but in eastern hemisphere conversation, terrorism means something very different than what you are claiming here. Most of the examples in the list of "terrorism examples" would not be considered terrorism at all, and dozens of very notable examples would be considered to be left out of your list. In the east, we tend to use examples that match a specific set of parameters. --The Random Element 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the most glaring incongruity is that your list of examples doesn't match your definition. --The Random Element 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please do not blank article sections 

message: Substituted at 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment