Talk:Terrorism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Poor writing quality and lack of engagement with academic work

The intro of this article is badly written - there is a rather embarrassing spelling mistake ("unparlimentry language") right at the beginning. I'm also not sure why the fact that terrorism might be considered "unparliamentary language" is relevant either, especially in the second sentence of the entire article.

There is also a lack of engagement with academic work on terrorism. Yes, sure, there is disagreement about the definition, but most scholars will tell you that (1) it must be conducted against civilians or non-combatants and (2) it must be designed to "send a message" beyond the immediate victims. Others adopt an even more restrictive definition, requiring that the perpetrators must be non-governmental actors (see the codebook for the Global Terrorism Database for an example of this).

In short, it seems somewhat silly to tell readers that "there is no universal agreement" about its definition. While agreement might not be universal, there is still a clear scholarly consensus that terrorism at least requires (1) violence against civilians for (2) a broader political or ideological purpose. This article should probably mention that rather than obfuscating the definition. 84.215.255.29 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

i prefer to leave it as it is, since it's a loaded term anyway. there are differing legal definitions, and those seem to be the only thing that matter. i'd prefer even more that the article treat the topic with a level of skepticism that undermines the idea that terrorism is meaningful in any sense except to criminalize political activity. commie (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Preview page problem??

Not sure if this is the right place to say this but it seems that a lot of terrorism-related articles have an odd image in the articles' preview page, seems like a troll or something GGnikeht (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. Someone vandalised a template. It's been fixed. (Hohum ^@) 20:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A Memo on Terrorism and Militancy

So, the Wikipedia article on the definition of terrorism claims that there is an academic consensus upon what it is, which is plainly false and contradicted by the very author whom much of it based on, who states that the only agreed upon definition of terrorism is that it somehow involves violence, which is obviously too broad.

This article presents a decent enough all-around set of viewpoints on just what terrorism is or is not, but, also, kind of reads as being in favor of considering "terrorism" to be a rhetorically charged pejorative.

It's certainly the case that "terrorism" is often utilized as such, for instance, in the case of the Trump administration's attempt to designate antifa as a "terrorist organization", as well as that the designation of an organization as being "terrorist" has legal consequences, both in terms of domestic and international law.

However, there does seem to be something which terrorism can be identified as. It is not as if the term is purely a subjective distinction which carries no informative content other than a person happens to be in opposition to whomever it is applied.

Something that I noticed in discussing the article on the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas was that the protocol on Wikipedia for referring to terrorist organizations was just to say that they were "militant".

While almost all terrorists are militants, not all militants are terrorists. For instance, I don't think that just about anyone would classify a person on strike as being a terrorist.

Political militancy merely denotes that a person has a disciplined devotion to their cause, whereas "terrorism" is connotative of all kinds of political baggage.

"Terrorism", however, is indicative of something distinct from political militancy, and does refer to something specific, namely the utilization of political violence when it can not be justified as self-defense.

This praxis does just simply carry that aforementioned baggage, or, that everything from the fixation on revolutionary purity to Stockholm Syndrome to the killing of more or less innocent people to revolutionary suicide just kind of come along with it.

Terrorism is a political concept, which is bound to delimit, if not determine, any number of political debates. Its definition is not neutral and it can not be neutral. Neither is its rejection as a useful term nor is its sheer lack of being defined. To call a rioter a "terrorist" is as equally rhetorical as it is to call a terrorist a "freedom fighter". The far-left has gained considerable ground in deconstructing the term, "terrorism", which, in the beaten way of critique, may be somewhat germane, but is also, in and of itself, a form of apologia.

I am not recommending that Wikipedia do this as of right now, as just referring to every organization that would otherwise be categorized as a "terrorist" organization as a "militant" one is one way not to get involved in endless disputes over just what is or is not terrorism and, thereby, inspire any number of edit wars, which is to say that it is an effective temporary encyclopedic protocol, but, at some point in the future, I do think that Wikipedia should, as is somewhat necessary for there even being this article, put forth an adequate definition for terrorism and abandon its reliance upon the operative euphemism, i.e. one that is implied by a system, of using the term, "militant".

As to just how that is to be done, given that it just simply will have political consequences, I would recommend to proceed with caution. That is, of course, if anyone agrees with this initiative. Personally, I should very much so like to avoid the potential legal spectacle that intelligence and the like could generate, given enough of a cultural saturation of the term. As I should also like to avoid a return to the political violence which began more or less beginning with German Autumn in the late 1960s, I do, however, think that this should eventually be changed.

I realize that I've waxed of a certain pacifist political partisanship in writing this, but the concept of terrorism is just simply an inherently political idea. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

tl;dr:

This article assumes that it's accepted as a given that "terrorism" is indicative of Loaded language, which, as per its use within the mass media, it often is, but I am suggesting that "militant" is a Polite fiction with a Persuasive definition. Further, I think that as per a colloquial use, with my not being a talking head, when I describe an act as an act of "political terrorism", you understand what I mean, something akin to the actions of the former Red Army Faction and not just a political organization that I happen to be in opposition to, which is how the term intuitively indicates something specific, which I am suggesting is the utilization of political violence when it can not be justified in self-defense.

I'm a little reluctant about all of this, myself, though, since it is so often loaded and its definition does have legal consequences. Being said, though, as per the colloquial use, it just isn't really a contested term, since everyone somehow knows what it refers to.

Now that the charges against Julien Coupat and the Tarnac Nine have thankfully been dropped, I just also wanted to point out that you could claim that the theory put forth in The Cybernetic Hypothesis was, in theory, but not practice, indicative of what is commonly called "adventurist terrorism", which isn't inherently militant, and, so, I don't think that militancy can be considered as criteria for terrorism. That's wildly tangential, though.Daydreamdays2 (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Blegh. Another suggestion would be to use "violent militant organization", or to note that such organizations participate within political violence, which the articles do, but that creates another problem since a lot of people advocate political violence, but don't participate within it. Perhaps, noting that they participate within political violence in the lead could work?

I don't even know. Somehow, I just feel like "militant" creates this perception that political violence is something other than what it ultimately is, anyways. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that there's actually an article on political violence. I think that it'd be best to recommend that instead. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The New Idea

I'm going to leave my previous topic up for posterity, but someone can delete if it's taking up too much virtual space. I suppose that I will if requested and no one else can.

Anyways, I've come up with a new approach.

I'm thinking that this article should emphasize that terrorism is a tactic. I'm also thinking that there could be some sort of informal rule which emphasizes this as well. Along with that rule, I'm thinking that it could be coupled with another which states, "acts of political violence that can not be justified in self-defense can be categorized as acts of terrorism". Wikipedia will have to just get into the weeds on a case by case basis as to just what is or is not self-defense.

I think that, in the rare case of responsive self-defense, i.e. there being more or less an actual occupying army who intends to eliminate the group in question, it wouldn't result in much of a debate, though there could be some when the response is excessive, but in the common case of proactive self-defense, i.e. the elimination of targets who present an existential threat to the group before said threat can be actualized, it's just bound to be highly contentious.

I think that insistence upon the caveat of self-defense, however, is tantamount to clarity and concision. For instance, acts of political violence that ought to be considered as terrorism should include things like the political assassinations carried out by the Red Army Faction during German Autumn. Perhaps, you can say that some of the people whom they killed weren't the greatest of human beings, but, as they were not attempting to systematically eliminate the kind of people to participate within the German protest movement, at the very least, not violently, it should be obvious that such actions were not in self-defense, which was almost never even claimed, and thereby acts of terrorism. The same should go for all of these kind of retaliatory attacks, regardless of social, political, or religious affiliation. So, what should not be in question are acts that do not even invoke or readily seem to involve self-defense whatsoever.

The somewhat reductive way to understand is that a person has the right to defend themselves against an invading army in so far that it is not excessive and that, in the exceptional case of that their opposition is planning their systematic elimination, i.e. there being a clear and present danger of their becoming a victim of genocide, politicide, or whathaveyou, they have a right to prevent the crime before it happens, even through violence, but, in almost every other case, self-defense can not be invoked to free a person of the charge of terrorism. I feel like the community of Wikipedia would have to kind of hash this all out, though.

An idiomatic way to put this is that "you can't rob a bank in self-defense".

Anyways, in many instances of acts of terrorism, self-defense is not even invoked, let alone seems to apply, for example, in almost every case of political violence in the contemporary West, if not all of them.

With all of that being said, though I do happen to be opposed to the utilization of political violence, some degree of impartiality should be maintained, as, even if the spade is a spade and an act of political violence is an act of terrorism, it is entirely possible for a person to support such acts, for instance, I think that the actions of the RAF were supported by between ten and twenty-five percent of the German student movement, though I wouldn't quote me on that. Though, in some sense a qualitative judgement about such acts, as it invariably appeals to some form of just war theory, it should also be part and parcel to this initiative to merely delineate just what is or is not terrorism.

tl;dr: The new idea is for an informal general rule which states, "terrorism is a tactic", and that "acts of political violence that can not be justified in self-defense can be categorized as acts of terrorism".

Daydreamdays2 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

In paragraph 1 of 'Historical Background' section,

change: "Some writers attitudes about French Revolution grew less favorable after the French monarchy was abolished in 1792."

to: "Some writers' attitudes about the French Revolution grew less favorable after the French monarchy was abolished in 1792."

Change 1 - Add apostrophe after "writers"

Reason: Here, the word "writers" is not only plural but also possessive.

Change 2 - Add "the" before French Revolution

Reason: Missing article Logan.malf22 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is anti-Zionistic, not anti Semitic.

under religious terrorism, the paragraph about Hamas says they are anti Semitic. however, they are anti-Zionistic. They are not the same thing. Bobkhan1234 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Arabs are are sometimes described as semitic. Is it that Hamas are opposed to the state of Israel, rather than hating the jewish people as a racial group? Isn't there a need for clarification here. Especially as Wikipedis defines "semitic" as an obsolete ethnic term. Does Hamas have any views on descendants of Jews for whom Palestine was their homeland? Rwood128 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rwood128 The confusion of these terms originated with the euphemistic language of German "racial scientists" in their attempt to "scientifically" justify anti-Jewish sentiment (Judenhass, literally "Jew-hatred"). To make a more euphemistic term they coined the word "Antisemitismus" which was borrowed into English as "antisemitism". See Antisemitism#Usage:

From the outset the term "anti-Semitism" bore special racial connotations and meant specifically prejudice against Jews. The term has been described as confusing, for in modern usage 'Semitic' designates a language group, not a race. In this sense, the term is a misnomer, since there are many speakers of Semitic languages (e.g., Arabs, Ethiopians, and Arameans) who are not the objects of antisemitic prejudices, while there are many Jews who do not speak Hebrew, a Semitic language. Though 'antisemitism' could be construed as prejudice against people who speak other Semitic languages, this is not how the term is commonly used.

Shmuel Almog argued, "If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words 'Semitism', 'Semite', 'Semitic' as meaningful ... [I]n antisemitic parlance, 'Semites' really stands for Jews, just that."

This is why journalistic writing conventions frequently specify the use of "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". Six Oh Five (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The origins aren't disputed but I think @Bobkhan1234 makes a valid good faith argument inline with the evolving use of language and the conceptual nuance they are communicating is sound. Bro The Man (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)