Talk:Terrorism/Archive 7

message: OK, let's not argue, let's vote on the definition.  I listed my votes, please add your own, with brief reasons only (list long discussions as separate sections and refer us there, please).  Also, feel free to change your votes at any time, as I will:
Terrorism criteria currently in the article:
   
* A terrorist act is generally unlawful.
:*Both Support and Oppose. Almost all official government definitions of terrorism include that it is unlawful.  When referencing documents such as the USA Act, it is correct to say that they define terrorism as unlawful.  Also, all propaganda used to support government definitions of terrorism would inherently include the constraint that it be unlawful, otherwise, the governments themselves would be guilty of terrorism.  Other than the definitions created by governments, or used pejoratively for government propaganda, no use of the term has ever included the constraint that it necessarily be unlawful.  Obviously, we need a separate government propaganda definition of terrorism that includes this usage.  --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose.  This term is too vague to be useful, as there are laws against just about anything, somewhere. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. Unlawful by whose laws? Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Support.  I would reword it as simply "It is life threatening." This excludes terrorism against property, such as by ELF, which is my intent. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. I agree with StuRat, but as I see it that means I oppose the stated version. I would change it to his suggestion. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Both Support and Oppose. Almost all official government definitions of terrorism include that it is violent and/or life-threatening.  When referencing documents such as the USA Act, it is correct to say that they define terrorism as life threatening.  Therefore, all propaganda used to support government definitions of terrorism would inherently include the constraint that it be life threatening.  Other than the definitions created by governments, or used pejoratively for government propaganda, very little use of the term has ever included the constraint that it necessarily be violent or life threatening.  For example, sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of young children are not necessarily violent by themselves, but they are often referred to as acts of terrorism because the seek to coerce through the systematic use of terror.  Obviously, we need separate definitions of terrorism to delineate these distinctions.  --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose.  It may also be religiously or ethnically motivated. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. Saying that terrorism is politically motivated is an attempt to cheapen those causes with which we do not agree. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Both Support and Oppose. Government definitions of terrorism like the USA Act do not include the stipulation that the act be politically motivated.  Since the USA Act is widely used to investigate and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, it certainly is not constraining itself to only politically motivated investigation of future crimes.  All future crimes can be investigated under the USA Act and its enforcement amendment, the USA PATRIOT Act.  Other than the government, however, hardly anyone uses the term terrorism to mean anything other than politically motivated attacks.  Obviously, common usage and government usage of the term are polar opposites in many respects.  --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Support.  This also includes actions by many countries during WW2, so this criterion is "necessary, but not sufficient" for us to call it terrorism. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Support. This means that attacks on military targets, such as the Pentagon on 9/11, or a soldier throwing a grenade into a tent full of officers, would not be considered terrorism, correct? Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Both Support and Oppose.  Since the government declared that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, people have been trying to figure out a definition of terrorism that fits the example.  Obviously the definition we used for the past 200 years, since it was coined, wouldn't work, so we tried to come up with a new one.  The stipulation that it necessarily targets civilians was one of the more pathetic attempts at redefining terrorism, but it seemed to stick since the President of the United States supported it.  Obviously, we need to separate newer definitions of terrorism from the ones we used before 9/11.  --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose.  Too vague. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. Direct targets are themselves part of the main target, or the acts would be pointless. In other words, American airplane passengers are all supporters of the American government, however indirectly. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Hu?   --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose.  Too vague. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. That covers pretty much every form of organization in the world. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Do you really need to ask? This is getting silly.  That obviously doesn't convey any information.   --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose.  This is also an objective in politics, traditional warfare, etc. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. I think I could support this if it was changed to something like "...to intimidate the civilian public and in turn weaken popular support...". Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Support. All usage of the term seems to include this constraint.  Conventional Warfare specifically targets an opponent's ability to fight, not his will to fight.  Terrorism is the opposite of Conventional Warfare.   --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose.  Doesn't help to define it. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. "Tomorrow it may or may not rain." Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Duh. This is the reverted definition that the Wikistapo gang wanted to start with?   --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Support.  I feel it is critical to distinguish between actions by governments, which can be found and defeated by traditional warfare, and secret organizations, which can't. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Abstain. I disagree with the current notion of "State Terrorism", but we have enough on our plate right now, so I will simply not vote on this one. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose Where did this one come from?  I've never read any definition or heard anyone use terrorism in this context.  We can't create definitions for the purpose of precluding the possibility that the authors might be implicated in the definition.      --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: * Support.  StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Oppose Are we creating definitions for the purpose of showing how The Soviet Union v. al-Qaeda is the different than The United States v. al-Qaeda?  --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes on Definition 

message: :::::::I'm going to post the last definition that all of us worked on before this edit war began, with the proposed changes that Sloat suggested.  I would appreciate any positive edits by anyone—-changes that make the definition better.  --Zephram Stark 00:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has a problem with you proposing changes that make the article better.  We just don't want you making it worse as a means of punishment for not getting your way.  Let your proposed changes speak for themselves.  If you honestly feel that you can make the following article better, please do so.  I think I speak for most Wikipedia editors when I say that the more positive help we have, the better.  --Zephram Stark 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could care less about punishing you Mr. Stark I just want you to stop disrupting the discussion.  I have proposed changes and you immediately ridiculed them and started posting your bogus definition again.  I don't want to make the article below better; I want it deleted entirely and I want to work with the article that we had before you started your little taxonomic jihad against it.  If we want to talk about "state terrorism" or other categories that are commonly used in the literature on this topic that is fine but it isn't part of the definition.  We don't need to talk about "pejorative" terrorism or your not much better "terrorism as propaganda" and concepts like "criminal terrorism".  The notion of "terrorism defined by government agency" is not much better than the ludicrous "FISA-terrorism" was.  Again your definition seems more like an attempt to hijack the discussion than an attempt to actually get to some useful work done here.  Nobody has suggested anything specifically wrong with the current definition nor has anyone suggested why we can't handle this more on the proper page.  So please put this definition to rest and let's work with what we have.--csloat 18:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, nobody has suggested anything specifically wrong with the currently locked definition.  We have five archived pages of people saying that it's just fine.  May or may not do this.  May or may not do that.  Pick the things you want it to mean.  It's kind of like a mix-n-match definition.  It's all things to all people and doesn't offend anyone.  The only teensy-weensy problem with it is that IT DOESN'T CONVEY INFORMATION.  Do you know what an encyclopedia is for?  It's for definitions that convey information!!  --Zephram Stark 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you're trying to evade the issues here.  I didn't say the current def was perfect.  I suggested specific changes and points of discussion.  You go back to whining that it "doesn't convey anything".  Then you try to get another user to buy into your bogus definition.  when will this end?--csloat 02:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It will end when the definition conveys information.  There are many people working toward that end.  You are not one of them.  --Zephram Stark 16:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a New Introduction 

message: ... and return to find Zephram still up to his old tricks. Good Lord.
Thanks to the admin who locked the article and restored a measure of sanity here. BrandonYusufToropov 10:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It just wouldn't feel like home if Wikipedia had an objective definition for terrorism, like every other Dictionary and Encyclopedia, would it?  It's a good thing JP locked down that subjective grab-bag of vague and contradictory meanings or you might have gone insane!!  --Zephram Stark 14:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone for two months ... 

message: with all the archived discussion, I don't know if this has been described before, but what about digressing to history before the intro?
e.g.
1)"In order to define what terrorsim is, it is helpful first to give a condensed overview of the the histories of the word and the phenomenon"
2)histories given
3)Presently, terrorism has come to mean ...
Dsol 18:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant!! --Zephram Stark 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, glad you like it.  Other opinions?  It would be great if we could get a consensus to at least try this, so we can unlock the page for a while. Dsol 23:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to define it first, then give historical usages. StuRat 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There aren't that many people who actually care about making a good article for terrorism, so don't expect anyone to support any particular idea.  Most of the people are only here to keep the term from ever being defined.  Don't let that stop you.  I think your idea is among the best I've heard and I'd love to see you work it up.  Obviously an article has to convey information in order to be considered a definition, so the grab-bag on the front page doesn't qualify, but as soon as we have a few real definition proposals, we can vote between them and the matter will be resolved.  I'd love to see your idea fleshed out and StuRat's too.  The more people we have making proposals, the better the definition will be in the end.  Don't worry about the turd-blossom patrol.  We flushed them all out with the last go round.  If they block your definition without proposing anything better, they will lose their seats of power.  Pretty much most of them are gone now, leaving a space for us to make real progress.  --Zephram Stark 01:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: See how easy it is to spot Karl's boys?  They drone on and on about how any proposal won't work, but never propose anything better.  Don't worry about Jayjg and his idle threats.  He obviously doesn't have more than eight or ten administrators in his corrupt little gang.  He talks all tough, but every time he blocks someone who's only crime is trying to make a better definition, he shows another dozen people how he's abusing his power, and we always get them unblocked again in very little time.  --Zephram Stark 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that in general this idea is not desirable for an encyclopedia article, especially when a reader comes to an article knowing nothing about the subject.  But I think it might be in this case, since most any reader coming here will have heard the term terrorism before, and will probably be wanting a more general and detailed overview of the what the term connotates beyond his/her own personal knowledge.  I also think it could resolve the current deadlock in a way that might eventually lead to a consensus on what terrorism is, and this defintion/lack of definition/discussion of the vagaries of defintion/whatever might eventually be move back to the top.  If the problem is as bad as it sounds, however, it might not do much good. Dsol 04:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Speak for yourself, tough guy.  My only interest is in creating a definition that conveys information.  My actions back that up.  Your actions betray your true motivation as well.  --Zephram Stark 12:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that your next personal attack on this page will result in an RfC. Your behavior is contributing to the delay in unprotecting this article. Carbonite | Talk 17:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want me to stop defending myself, I know of a really easy way to do that, Carbonite.  Stop attacking me, and concentrate on a making a positive proposal for the article.  --Zephram Stark 14:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you actually listen to your own advice? Carbonite | Talk 14:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Zephram Stark 15:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new idea? 

message: Also (though not to derail), I noticed there's no link to the many articles on terrorism in other languages.  Very interesting distinctions.  German one talks about a systematic and tactical action toward a goal, French about 'un sentiment de terreur,' Russian about an action of violence against someone who's not a formal enemy, Italian stub admits that 'La definizione di terrorismo non è unica,' Spanish page, with a warning about 'la neutrelidad,' starts off by descrbing terrorism as 'una estrategia de guerra asimétrica,' and quickly acknowledges the utility of considering 'la etimología de la palabra.'  I would be interested especially in Hebrew, and Arabic if someone can summarize their definitions. Dsol 23:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same word often has slightly different, or in some cases radically different, meanings in different languages.  For example, in French "molest" means to "bother or disturb" (which is also it's original meaning in English, as seen in old movies: "Officer, this man is molesting me").  It's common modern meaning is to sexually assault children.  My point is that we will likely find a different meaning for terrorism is each language.  I'm not sure how WikiPedia handles this in general, does it restrict itself to the English language or try to define words in every language in which they are used ? StuRat 00:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I don't think this applies here, since at present we have many world leaders adressing the whole world on the subject of terrorism as "currently understood," knowing that they will be translated into English, Finnish, Chinese....  Thus if there's a breakdown in meaning in some of these translation, I think that far from rendering the foreign language meanings irrelevant, this breakdown is relevant to the article because of the global natures of terrorism and the response to it. Dsol 04:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that's an excellent idea!!  Definitions from other languages are highly relevant. --Zephram Stark 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've never heard an encyclopedia refer to itself in any manner.  I didn't even think they could talk. --Zephram Stark 03:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia in English shouldn't cite itself but I'm pretty sure it can site Wikipedia articles in other languages.  I wouldn't recommend this, though, since chances are the other langauges' wiki articles are equally volatile.  My point was just that issue this should be included somehow, as it seems to accentuate the difficulty of the definition.  I think that the language issue is just one more reason to avoid an overly narrow or technical definition. (I'm taking out that smiley face if no one minds) Dsol 04:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mind Jayjg.  He's just throwing up another smoke screen.  If we listened to the Rove's naysayers, we wouldn't consider anybody's definition of terrorism except the Department of Homeland Gestapo.  --Zephram Stark 12:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspectives from Other Languages 

message: Let's play a little game called Just One Sentence.  In it, we'll take turns proposing the first sentence for the terrorism article.  Anyone can play, but you can't reject the previous person's proposal unless you can come up with a better one yourself.  When we get to the point that nobody can propose something better, that must be the best possible first sentence we can get.  --Zephram Stark 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Hipocrite's definition is better because I think the Department of Defence is biased.  Asking a government to define terrorism is like asking David Berkowitz to define mass-murderer.  If we have to quote a definitive source, I think the OED description, that I propose below, is written from an NPOV.  --Zephram Stark 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the above definition is better that Hipocrite's because Jayjg's doesn't convey any information.  I think we can all agree that the minimum purpose of a definition is to convey information.  --Zephram Stark 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said it was a definition. He claimed it was a good first sentence, and I agree with him. I think we can all agree that trying to wrap up the usage of this word in one short simple straightforward sentence is never going to be possible, and these two sentences are a good way to introduce the article. – Smyth\talk 19:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I think we have a format dispute that needs to be worked out before we can agree on how to add content.  I'll start a section for that.  --Zephram Stark 19:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's definitions you're looking for, "Terrorism is the use of force by non-governmental groups or individuals with the intent of deliberately killing or injuring civilians in order to achieve political ends". Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that from the Qur'an? --Zephram Stark 20:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you were trying to engage in meaningful discourse. I won't make that error again. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I misunderstood you.  When you said that it was a definition, I thought you meant that it was taken from something.  Since you didn't provide a source, I thought the authoritarianism of it sounded like the Qur'an.  --Zephram Stark 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't bother with the B.S., Stark, you know the Qur'an contains no definitions of terrorism.  Where did your proposed definitions come from?  Any of them?  You just invented them. Your agenda here is clear, it is purely for POV pushing and disruption. You are dismissed. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never read the Qur'an, but the quotes I've heard from it are consistent with your definition of terrorism being specifically non-governmental: the government gets it's power from God and anyone who disagrees is against God, evil, or some other pejorative term.  In a government of the people, like we have here in the good old USA, we would never require government exclusion from a potentially pejorative term.  Here, our representatives only get their power from us, so it is possible for them to be just as corrupt as any non-governmental group, or more so.  --Zephram Stark 21:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree that terrorism is necessarily life-threatening, necessarily violent, or necessarily directed against civilians.  None of those things are required to terrorize someone.  I don't think we should preclude the possibility that the word might be used in its original context.  --Zephram Stark 20:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should, because "intense fear" clearly is not the subject of this article. – Smyth\talk 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me make sure that I understand you correctly.  You're saying that nobody uses terrorism to mean anything that could include "intense fear?" --Zephram Stark 21:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm saying that "terrorism" in the ultra-broad sense that you propose, namely "any policy that causes intense fear" is not the subject of this article. – Smyth\talk 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that anybody proposed "any policy that causes intense fear."  Where did you get that quote from?  The closest I can find is the OED definition that you tried so hard to convince me was the most authoritative source.  Personally, I would rather go with Webster.   --Zephram Stark 23:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just one Sentence