Talk:Terrorism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Unprotection proposal

Here begins yet another bloody section.

I can see that the content debate has restarted and seems like it will go on for a while. However, the article is not in a very good state right now, and I don't want to to remain locked indefinitely while we tortuously bash this out. Therefore, I suggest this:

• The article will be unlocked, and small- and medium-scale editing will be able to resume.
• Large-scale structural changes to the article, including substantial revisions of the introduction, will be required to achieve consensus on the talk page before they are committed.
• Consensus means CONSENSUS. A lack of response is not consensus. Suggestions for major changes which receive a lack of response, should have responses solicited from contributors to the article and discussions over the last few months.
• Nobody will obnoxiously claim to have consensus when they do not, or fake consensus by the use of sockpuppets.
• These rules will apply to everyone, including me.

– Smyth\^talk 21:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, with the proviso that consensus means Wikipedia:Consensus, which ranges from 60% to 80% agreement, depending on the issue. And, of course, sockpuppets and IPs never count for these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So basically we all have to abide by the policies of Wikipedia? Yeah, that works for me. Carbonite | Talk 22:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand your proposal correctly. You want to have the non-definitional intro on the article, and nobody can ever change it unless they solicit responses and get answers back from everyone who has contributed to the article or the discussion over the past few months? On top of that, anyone that Jayjg labels a sockpuppet isn't included in the consensus? --Zephram Stark 22:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as we start with an introduction that conveys information, and I get to pick the sockpuppets this time. --Zephram Stark 22:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean, reuse the sockpuppets, don't you? --Calton | Talk 00:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't think anyone is going to solicit votes from everyone who has contributed to the discussion, since most of them were only here to badmouth other editors and sometimes even said that they had no interest in the article. How about a more realistic proposal?

Proposal #2: Because the current introduction is factually incorrect, we obviously can't use it, so lets just agree on one sentence that encompasses everyone's definitions and leave the intro at that until we can agree on more. We can put proposals in a special section on our watchlist and anyone who cares to vote can do so. If we get a seventy percent consensus over any three day period, that becomes the new intro. Sockpuppets are also determined in their own section by a seventy percent consensus. --Zephram Stark 22:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is your definition of factual something that is consistent with the scientific method, or does your factual have a higher, religious meaning? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically, of course. I'm quite sure that if a scientific study were done of the various usages of the word terrorism, absolutely none of them would be the nondefinition included in our article's introduction. --Zephram Stark 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Since terms like "terrorism" cannot be defined "scientifically", I was wondering if you were confusing science with your religious beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all, but thanks for caring. --Zephram Stark 23:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite

I have a proposal -- how about somebody who has a specific problem with the current definition articulate precisely what that problem is, and attempt to rewrite the introduction to address that specific problem? Why not hammer out a consensus over a new definition on the discussion page and then let an admin make the change to the page so that it stays locked otherwise. Starting with a premise like "the current intro is factually incorrect" is totally useless unless we can identify what exactly is incorrect about it. --csloat 23:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the current definition. I do not believe there is a verifiable source that states either that "there is no agreed upon definition" In fact - given the sections below, it seems there are quite a few agreed upon definitions. Additionally, I believe that saying "The word "terrorism" is controversial," begs the question of who and where (aside from this talk page) is said contravercy going on. Said question is not answered in the article. I have not read enough of this talk page to be certain my questions have not been answered prior - if they have, feel free to just assert such and I'll go digging through the archives. If I find they have not, however, I will be quite cross. I also believe the untoward focus on the WORD as opposed to the concept is more appropriate for Wikietymology, not Wikipedia. (unless I confused bugs and words.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I see from your suggestion in #Just one sentence:

According to the Department of Defence, terrorism is "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." In practice, the exact definition varies - it has descriptive and prescriptive..." Remove from "Definitions of "terrorism" generally" to "See State terrorism." Where relevent insert into body text. Lose the entire definitions section.

... that you would want to keep at least some of the existing introduction, but it's not clear how much. Could you put together a draft and post it here? – Smyth\^talk 06:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

ROFL

I'm glad I got you laughing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If you look at many different sources, do you find the same basic definition of terrorism? If not, then there isn't an agreed upon definition.

I actually do see the same basic definition. For instance, all of the definitions somehow talk about violence or the threat thereof. All of them seem to talk about goals of some nature. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

By "basic" definition, I mean essentially the same definition, allowing for slight differences in wording. Take a look at dictionary.com, which has definitions from three dictionaries. [1] Each definition has noticable difference, such as referring to civilians, declaring the act unlawful or mentioning government. In my opinion, these three are not the same basic definition. If we looked at what certain governments or groups have for definitions, they'd be even more disparity. Carbonite | Talk 02:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Have countless hours and words been used to argue the definition of terrorism on this page alone? If so, then there is controversy. For outside sources, an AP article [2] (via Yahoo) states that "A definition of terrorism has long been controversial..." A Google search [3] for "definition+terrorism+controversy" returns over 600,000 hits.

Yes - certainly at the margins there is political contravercy. Can states be included?

I'm not sure that the controversy is limited in any way. Getting a majority of people to agree that a specific act is or is not terrorism may not be that difficult. However, trying to define a definition that covers all the acts considered terrorism and only those acts is virtually impossible. That's why there's so much controversy. Every time a definition is proposed, someone will soon think of a scenario that would break the definition. Carbonite | Talk 03:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Before we can move forward, we must realize that no definition can be completely accurate or neutral. No definition will be accepted by all. We have to try our best to achieve Wikipedia:Consensus, which does not mean "everyone agrees". Carbonite | Talk 23:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a disambiguation page? People could choose what every pre-9/11 dictionary and encyclopedia in the world says, or government propaganda, depending on what each person likes. --Zephram Stark 00:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, there are indeed verifiable sources that assert that there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism. A quick Google search for "no agreed definition terrorism" came up with some fruitful references real quickly. Examples:

The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself. The present view, claiming it is unnecessary and well-nigh impossible to agree on an objective definition of terrorism, has long established itself as the “politically correct” one. It is the aim of this paper, however, to demonstrate that an objective, internationally accepted definition of terrorism is a feasible goal, and that an effective struggle against terrorism requires such a definition. The sooner the nations of the world come to this realization, the better.[4]

There are several international conventions that define war crimes, but there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism.[5]

Amnesty International does not use the word "terrorism". In our view it is simply not an acceptable term of use given that there is no internationally agreed definition of what the term means.[6]

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure if Webster were alive today, he would do Google searches instead of writing definitions that mean anything. --Zephram Stark 00:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Which demonstrates how little you actually know about how dictionaries are actually written. Check out Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman for a look at how the greatest English-language dictionary in history was actually produced. Hint: it wasn't from Olympian ego-driven pronouncements of a self-proclaimed expert. --Calton | Talk 00:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Do tell. Did they do Google searches? Did they pronounce terms controversial and beyond definition? Did they provide a grab-bag of contradictory definitions and let people mix and match? --Zephram Stark 00:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

They would have happily used Google had it existed; they certainly used every other tool at their disposal to acquire their informaion. Yes, they did provide grab-bags of contradictory definitions and let people mix and match, if they found that the actual usage of the term being defined had a grab-bag of contradictory definitions. Even simple words can have dozens of different definitions, and dictionaries record that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Stark, you have an amazing talent for asking irrelevant rhetorical questions as smokescreens, and make a convincing argument why you don't belong anywhere near the editing this or any other article. But to give you a bit of an education, since I don't have the book to hand, I'll use Wikipedia's article on the OED:

[Richard Chenevix] Trench suggested that nothing short of a new and truly comprehensive dictionary would do: one that would be based on contributions from a large number of volunteer readers, who would read books, copy out passages illustrating various actual uses of words onto quotation slips, and mail them to the editor...

It was [Charles] Murray who really got the project off the ground and was able to tackle its true scale. Because he had many children, he chose not to use his house (in the London suburb of Mill Hill) itself as a workplace; an iron outbuilding, which he called the Scriptorium, was erected for him and his assistants. It was provided with 1,029 pigeon-holes and many bookshelves...

Murray now tracked down and regathered the slips already collected ...but he found them inadequate because readers had focused on rare and interesting words...He therefore issued a new appeal for readers, which was widely published in newspapers and distributed in bookstores and libraries. This time readers were specifically asked to report "as many quotations as you can for ordinary words" as well as all of those that seemed "rare, obsolete, old-fashioned, new, peculiar or used in a peculiar way....Soon 1,000 slips per day were arriving at the Scriptorium, and by 1882 there were 3,500,000 of them.

So yes, the editors of the OED did the late 19th-century equivalent of Google searching, and yes, if you actually look in the OED, they do provide a grab-bag of contradictory definitions and let people mix and match.

So, do you have an other ludicrously inapt analogies to attempt to misdirect the conversations, or would you like to join the rest of us in the real world where objective black-and-white definitions of common terms are the exception, not the norm? You find it aesthetically troubling? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 01:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Calm down please, Hypocrite seems to be a serious editor and you should try to work with him. – Smyth\^talk 06:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

RSVP. AWOL. QED. I'm sorry, I'm confused: is this Post Non-sequitor Initialisms Day? --Calton | Talk 03:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of wading further into this than I already have, I'd like to say that I agree with Stark's idea of a disambiguation page. I know he can be a little abrasive, which can cause some of us to skim past his good points while we look for the next insult or point of argument, but this really is a good idea. Terrorism could be split into its various eras, and users can decide which time frame is appropriate for their search. The M.O. of terrorism today is quite different than the terrorism of the early 20th century, or even the terrorism of the 1970s and 1980s, and the motives are different as well. Governments have defined terrorism differently throughout its history, so it might simplify things to split the terms into separate pages. A few suggestions:

• Early 20th Century European Nationalist terrorism (like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or the Reichstag Fire)
• Late 20th Century American terrorism (such as the Murrah Building bombing, Ted Kozynski's mail bombs, or the firebombing of abortion clinics)
• Pre-9/11/01 Mid-East terrorism (airplane hijackings in Algeria, bombings by Lybians, the fatwas declared on writers and artists like Salman Rushdie, the hostage taking of the Israeli Olympic team in Germany)
• Post-9/11/01 terrorism (starting with and including those initial attacks) which has led to military action on a more unified and global scale. (This could be the "terrorism" page re-named, and it would be where most of the arguments that we're having right now would likely continue.)

I'm sure there are lots more categories, but the great thing about wikipedia is that there's no limit to the number of articles we can spin off of this one. I would say that defining European Nationalist terrorism circa 1910 will generate much less controversy than current definitions, so we could at least get some good solid pages on the various faces of terrorism in the past. Maybe if we can get a few cohesive articles written on less controversial eras, we could begin to see a common thread that could help us in our definition here.

Is anyone else willing to help with this, without letting the current disagreements spill over into twenty new articles? I'm willing to try. Kafziel 14:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be original research. If you want a typology of terrorism check out David C. Rapaport's - he breaks down terrorism into premodern (KKK, sons of Liberty) and modern (everything since the end of 19th century). Modern terrorism is the actions of individuals or small groups against larger groups, and was made possible by the invention of dynamite and the rotary press. He breaks down modern terrorists into 4 "waves" - the anarchist wave, the anti-colonial wave (including early Irish and Zionist terrorism), the new Left wave (including the Palestinian and "Red" terrorists of the 60s-70s) and the religious wave (beginning on the Muslim new year in 1979). It's a nice typology, accurate in some ways, but the problem is it breaks down if you look at many specific incidents. Where do the Serb nationalists who attacked New York in the 70s belong? What about Timothy McVeigh? etc. It's just not that great scholarship since there are so many things that occur that do not fit typologies easily. I suggest we could indicate that such typologies exist but I don't think it's in the scope of Wikipedia to create new ones. That's not to say we can't have different headings to talk about different phenomena as we do on other pages, but that we should not make it seem like a definitive typology. --csloat 20:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I draft a proposal:

User:Hipocrite/Terrorism. Please feel free to edit said user-space article.

Starting with the definitions used by some American governmental agencies seems highly American-centric to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but otherwise it seems good. Would Hipocrite agree to replacing the first sentence with The OED defines terrorism as the actions of "a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects".?– Smyth\^talk 06:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't give two shakes about where the definition in the intro comes from, as long as this article spends more time talking about Terrorism, and less time about the eytmology of a word that starts with the letter T. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That's an odd definition. Clandestine or expatriate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Then suggest another one, from a source that people won't immediately complain about. The one worthwhile thing ZP said was that we need some sort of simple definition in the introduction. Look at the intro right now and pretend you're an alien or foreigner who's never seen the word before, and see how confused you'd be. – Smyth\^talk 07:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What version of the OED are you using? It doesn't say anything like that under "terrorism" in mine. --Go Cowboys 17:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I retrieved it from their website, which my university has a subscription to. It is actually listed under "terrorist", but one of the entries under "terrorism" refers specifically to it. – Smyth\^talk 18:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading through all this talk history with a few grins and tears. It looks like you tried to misquote the OED once before in this same way and got caught. Making up definitions is one thing, but incorrectly citing a source is a serious offense. It's compounded by the fact that you hid it by only quoting part of the definiton of another word that it referenced, that you did it again after being caught, and that you tried to mix up the accusation after you were caught again. If you would like my advice, I think you should just say that you're sorry and move on. --Go Cowboys 18:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, it was these kinds of attacks that got you banned before. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

UnblockingUnprotecting

I'm inclined to unblock now. The consensus is obvious and defendable; and given ZS's fucking Jews comment, it seems to me that we can proceed without worrying about his opinion or behaviour. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Jp. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I did actually mean "unprotect". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

When I first glanced at your post, I thought it meant you were going to unblock old Zeph. I was thinking you'd gone soft in your old age. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. Have at it! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Splitting Terrorist from Terrorism

Reading through this, the problem seems obvious to me. "Terrorist" is being redirected here. Some of you are trying to define a "terrorist", while others are trying to define "terrorism". They are two different words with different meanings. Look it up in any dictionary. "Terrorist" is almost always used to mean bad guys, but "terrorism" is used to describe an act that is often talked about without much negative emotion at all. Simply split the two definitions into "terrorist" and "terrorism", and the problem is solved. --Go Cowboys 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, haven't we all made it clear we're not interested in your original research? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, how is citing a dictionary "original research" exactly? I second User:Go Cowboys' terrorism vs terrorist distinction proposal (though some note on the misuse and/or the intertwined nature of the words' definitions should be mentioned in both articles) zen master T 08:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Which dictionary has Zephram Stark/Go Cowboys cited? I see none; rather, he gives his impressions about some differences he believes exist between the words, based on his claim that he sees "hate in their eyes" when he watches people use the word terrorist on TV, and ignoring the rather obvious point that terrorism is the action, terrorists are those who do terrorism. Cowboys/Stark keeps pretending that there is some "objective" definition of terrorism that he wants to enter here, as distinct from some "pejorative" definition of the term that everyone else wants to keep. As his latest ploy, he's trying to shunt off the "pejorative" definition into an article called "terrorist", so he can insert his personal "objective" definitions here. Please review Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to work it up into a proposal, or should I have a crack at it? I would be happy to work on it if there are no serious objections. --Go Cowboys 14:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• "terrorism" is used to describe an act that is often talked about without much negative emotion at all -- really? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It's all relative. Go Cowboy's key point is that terrorism != terrorist, are you disputing the need for separate, distinct articles? zen master T 15:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

When I watch news on the tele, you can see hate in their eyes when they say "terrorist". It is hard for people to say "terrorist" without meaning "evil person". The same is not true for "terrorism". People talk about it dispassionately all the time. Often the same people who talk about a "terrorist" as though he were Satan-incarnate, also talk about "terrorism" quite rationally. That is what I see here also. Some people want a term for an action that they can discuss rationally. Others want another way of saying "evil person". We can do both. A "terrorist" can be a bad guy at the same time that "terrorism" is discussed rationally, just like on the tele. --Go Cowboys 15:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't think much of anything is discussed rationally on tv. Though I strongly agree there should be a distinction between terrorist and terrorism article wise. zen master T 15:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm just puzzled. A "terrorist" is one who commits "terrorism". Am I missing some other definition? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes logical sense, but it is neither consistent with most official definitions or with common use. --Go Cowboys 15:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the answer is "yes, I'm missing some other definition". Please supply one. (By the way, your observations about seeing hate in people's eyes on TV is interesting original research; can you point me to some published data regarding this phenomenon?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That is my conclusion. I think it's pretty obvious, but I have never included that in an article because it is a secondary source. Stating logical conclusions based on factual data is certainly allowed by Wikipedia when used in discussion about an article. I think you already knew that. --Go Cowboys 16:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what's this "some other definition" I'm missing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for separate articles. Terrorist and terrorism both have negative connotations, and they are not separate phenomena. Terrorism is a tactic, terrorists are people who use terrorism. If someone is using "terrorist" in a way that disconnects it from terrorism, it's just rhetorical nonsense (of which there is plenty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comprendium of rhetorical nonsense.) Isomorphic 16:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm back!! --Zephram Stark 00:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

For those who haven't noticed, he's now banned for another two days for creating User:Go Cowboys, and crudely cloning the userpage of User:Zzyzx11 to conceal the account's newness. – Smyth\^talk 09:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What does it take to ban him for good? He has shown again and again that he has nothing valuable to contribute. I find it especially distasteful to witness his attempts to pretend to be interested in actually improving things around here (see below; assuming "Professor Stevens" is not yet another sock). His sockpuppetry continues to be a problem (and has been verified by David Gerard). I have a hard time even thinking about working on articles where he is actively trying to commandeer the discussion.csloat 05:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What does it take to ban me? How about actually doing something wrong? As you may have noticed on the Request for Comments page, people actually investigate your allegations. They know that I absolutely did not create any sockpuppets; that David Gerard did not verify any claims that I did; that I contribute considerably to Wikipedia; and that, if you have a hard time thinking or working, it's a personal problem.

Wikipedia is not about rising to the top by kissing the derrieres of powerful schlemiels, or by henpecking those who refuse. It's about creating articles for an encyclopedia resource that we want people to trust. When people outside of your circle of friends look at this discussion page, they see about half of us trying to create an introduction for terrorism that actually conveys information, while the other half tries to invalidate our efforts. Your actions, not your words, convey which side of the struggle you are on. --Zephram Stark 14:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:David_Gerard#Sockpuppet_check_request. Mister Stark, in addition to all your other fine qualities, you're a liar. – Smyth\^talk 17:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the WikiEN-l mailing list a few days ago, Mr. Gerard's statements could not be considered proof, evidence, or even supported conjecture. If Mr. Gerard did IP lookups for these editors, is there any reason why he can't post the results so that we can see the similarities (if any)? Is there any reason why he can't show us the output of a proxycheck instead of alluding to open proxies?

I can think of one reason: total disclosure would not be loyal to the cause. The faithfulness I see amongst administrators is important to the smooth operation of an association. Yet historically, it has also been the breeding ground for corruption. Exclusion is a sure warning sign that methods of punishment are forming and malfeasance is creeping into the system. When it gets to the point that administrators like Jayjg and SlimVirgin don't even try to tie punishment back to any rule or standard of Wikipedia, we can know for certain that their actions are driving off good editors and contributors to this work.

At some point, the corruption becomes so blatant that it is impossible to get much of anything productive accomplished. At that point, the system fails. I hope we will not wait that long to do something about it. When there is ample evidence of administrators using their power to bias the content of articles, it is time for them to relinquish that power. Loyalty can include all Wikipedia editors when our power to influence articles is based solely on the quality of our edits. --Zephram Stark 20:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Erased from the collective memory?

I've removed the following recent addition:

Government involvement in terrorist activities, and their true nature, is typically hidden from the civilian population. Even when revealed in blockbuster fashion, it can effectively be erased from collective memory. For example, in the US, the Reagan administration's support for attacks against civilians in Nicaragua, through the Contras, was made illegal by the US congress, and resulted in convictions of high-level Reagan appointees. Yet this high-profile terrorist sponsorship was forgotten in the US, long before Reagan's death in 2004.

This strikes me as inaccurate, not to mention OR. "Forgotten in the US"? Not at all. It's quite well remembered, and was brought up in the non-synoptic media any time criminality in the White House or the history of the Reagan presidency was discussed, and of course at the time of Reagan's death. "Effectively erased from collective memory"? Perhaps the editor who added this might wish to tone down the hyperbole to make his or her point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus in Action

In an ideal implementation of consensus, "those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus" ~Wikipedia. In less than ideal circumstances, however, is there an objective codification of consensus to which we can agree temporarily, in order to produce a definitive introduction to the terrorism article? I would like to try a rule-based implementation of consensus for the reason that no other method has successfully produced a stable and objective introduction to terrorism .

Imagine the article to be a blank page to which we will only add items that we can all agree are an improvement over the last accepted proposal. Thus, our first proposal only needs to be an improvement over a blank page. A proposal to replace it would only need to improve upon it. We do not need to agree that each step is perfect, true, good, or beautiful—-only that it is an improvement over the last.

Good faith, and an assumption that opinions of all editors are valuable, must be present in order for this to work. If there is any motive except improvement over the last accepted proposal, this attempt at consensus will fail. Please limit your discussion in this section to whether or not each proposal conveys better information than the prior accepted proposal. If anyone stands by their logical argument as to why it is not at least a little bit better, a proposal is dropped and goes back to the previous article until agreement on change can be established. Let's make an honest attempt at consensus and see how good of an introduction we can create. --Zephram Stark 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Terrorism is the systematic use of terror.

I believe this definition is better than a blank page. It is simply a breakdown of the word: terror + ism. If you think a blank page is better than this, please explain why you feel that way. Otherwise, please propose an introduction that you think is an improvement over this one. --Zephram Stark 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Professor Stevens Introduction

In the hundreds of classroom discussions I have conducted on terrorism, every one has produced high passions and a desire to say, “Let’s just agree to disagree.” Yet having no common ground yields no way to discuss the matter. Instead of forcing an answer, we look at the questions, “What is terrorism?” “Why do we want to know?” “Why is it hard to define?” “What prejudices are involved in the various definitions of terrorism?” There may be no common ground in the answers to these questions, but there is agreement that the questions exist, in the underlying motivations for these questions, and in the reasons for the wide discrepancy in the answers. Common ground is the foundation of an encyclopedia article. Without it, nothing exists to tie the various sections together. While there may be no agreed upon answers as to what it is or whether it is legitimate, philosophical questions about the use of terror exist. Thus, Terrorism is, at the very least, a philosophical issue. Every classroom in which I have conducted this discussion has agreed to use questions about the effectiveness and legitimacy of terrorism as a rudimentary foundation in defining the term. It has proven to be enough. With such a simple concept as a common ground on which to build, people from all backgrounds and belief systems have been able to work together in harmony to discuss the ramifications of various usages and official definitions. Regardless of whatever else we can say about terrorism, it is, at the very least, a philosophy. Proof of that is this very discussion. When one wants to say that a philosophy of something exists, without saying anything else about it, one typically coins the new term as [something]ism.

Here is my proposal, which I think is better than Zephram Stark's, which is better than a blank page, which in turn, is better than the current article. --Professor Stevens 18:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Professor Stevens Proposal

Terrorism is a philosophy, and the implementation of a philosophy, that terror can be used as an effective and legitimate means of coercion. The definition of the term has become a battleground in a war to promote or reject that philosophy.

• Opponents typically reject the legitimacy of terrorism on moral grounds by assigning pejorative meanings to its definition: kills or hurts innocent civilians, breaks the law, seeks to destroy freedom, et cetera. Outside of moral issues, the effectiveness of terrorism is alleged to conflict with the basic humanity and natural rights of those being terrorized.
• Proponents typically focus on the effectiveness of terrorism in: producing war weariness, drawing a civilian population into a conflict, causing government overreaction, eliminating civil liberties of the enemy, recruitment to the cause, et cetera. Issues of morality are dealt with in distinct and separate ways depending on the size and power of the terrorist organization. An overwhelming force typically points to the greater good of coercion over a conventional military strike, or the necessity of liberating an oppressed population from their own despondency and prejudice. A significantly weaker force points out that a conventional military strike would not be effective, and yet they are compelled by their basic humanity to fight for freedom. The same natural rights alleged by opponents to make terrorism ineffective are also used to explain why repressed people are willing to prioritize acts of terrorism over everything else, including their lives.

The basic assertions of both opponents and proponents of the philosophy have objective merit. It is generally considered true that terrorism has no basis in popular morality, and that those being terrorized cannot give up their natural rights. At the same time, terrorism has historically been effective in many instances. Moreover, the basic tenets of our civilization assert that humanity’s natural rights compel us to fight against subjugation. The various definitions of terrorism which, more or less effectively, resolve this discrepancy, along with the ramifications of these definitions, make up the subject of this article. --Professor Stevens 18:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I disagree with your premise that a blank page is better than the entire article on terrorism. There are many great sections in the article. We just need a great introduction to go along with them. I think your preamble is brilliant. It is NPOV, factually correct, and touches on all usages of the term without stepping on people's toes. Even more impressively, it makes me want to read what's next! Good job. Can anyone think of something better? --Zephram Stark 23:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If nobody has any better suggestions than the preamble proposed by Professor Stevens above, does anyone have an issue with me adding appropriate links and replacing the current introduction with it? --Zephram Stark 04:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Nobody has a better suggestion" -- even if true -- does NOT mean any substitution for the old is warranted. And yes, I and -- I'd bet next week's paycheck on it -- many others do have an issue with you even touching this article, let alone your unilateral change. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

We're trying to reach a consensus here. Please try to be constructive. I would love to hear your proposal that you think is an improvement on the one by Professor Stevens. --Zephram Stark 04:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mr. Stark; "we" are not trying to do anything, since that presumes that the rest of us want to have anything to do with you and your sock puppets. Here's my proposal -- you and your sock puppets go bother someone else and leave the rest of us to figure out what "terrorism" means on our own. I have no interest in any further interactions with someone whose conduct on this forum is so disruptive and who then calls us racist names when he doesn't get his way. Get lost, please.--csloat 05:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All that matters to me is that the job gets done. If you can create an article for terrorism that conveys information—-enables the word to be used in a sentence—-that's all that I or any of the dozens of other people calling for a definitive introduction, throughout the archives, have ever wanted. It is blatantly POV to say terrorism is so vague that it can't be defined while giving specific examples of terrorism and limiting others. Examples of terrorism listed in the article seem to be based solely on what the United States and Israeli governments label terrorism for purposes of propaganda. I can't figure out any other definition that would include those examples while excluding much more obvious instances. For example, even though over a billion people refer to the 1990s sanctions against Iraq that killed over a million people (mostly children under the age of five) as terrorism, nobody has ever tried to create a listing for it. What definition precludes this blatant coercion of a sovereign government through the systematic use of terror against its citizens, yet includes the assassination of Anwar Sadat? Obviously, one that starts out "The word 'terrorism' is controversial, with no universally agreed definition." --Zephram Stark 18:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

For example, even though over a billion people refer to the 1990s sanctions against Iraq that killed over a million people (mostly children under the age of five) as terrorism, nobody has ever tried to create a listing for it. Sure someone has, Zephram - you have. That's what all your edits have been about here, from the very start - trying to write an article that defines the U.N. sanctions on Iraq as "terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL... I had no idea, but I found myself in the middle of this brawl a few weeks later than everyone else, so I never saw what started it. the funny thing is, had he actually just come out and said that, he might have actually been able to persuade some of us "fucking Jews" that he was correct. Instead there are now many of us who simply cannot and will not even try to take seriously anything at all that he or any of his sock puppets have to say here.--csloat 05:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was the start, though of course he denies it now. Here's his first re-write of the page, where he inserts a whole bunch of text about the Gulf War and economic sanctions being terrorism, and attempts to cast doubt on whether the 9/11 attacks were terrorism. You see, in his view, the U.S. is the big terrorist player here, and so it is trying to re-define terrorism to blame others and absolve itself. Zephram feels he must combat that by be creating his own definitions of terrorism that cast blame the U.S. and absolve others, and anyone who opposes his politically motivated original research must be trying to support the U.S. President.[7] Thus every one of his one-man re-writes of the articles (errr, "consensus versions"), is another attempt to create a definition in which the United States is the villain because it is committing "objective terrorism", and others are innocent because they are merely being accused of "subjective terrorism", "pejorative terrorism", "FISA terrorism", etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You can see from the edit history that neither I, nor anyone else, has tried to edit the article in that way. I don't have any secret agenda. My purpose is to help create a great article. Consistency of examples is necessary to create an NPOV piece. Can anyone take Wikipedia seriously when we list specific examples without clear definitions? --Zephram Stark 04:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to sit here and talk about the article, to try to reach a consensus with anyone who wants to define the term, for as long as it takes. I have proposed an objective introduction. Professor Stevens has proposed a radically different objective introduction. Either one is a dramatic improvement over the current intro that conveys no information.

As I'm sure everyone can see by now, there are people who want to keep terrorism undefined, but we know who they are. They're the ones who talk about anything else but how to make our article convey information. Are they going to succeed? Are they going to prove to the world that Wikipedia cannot be a serious resource? The answer to that question is entirely up to us. I, for one, am going to continue talking about a definitive introduction until it happens. I am going to keep requesting comments from other editors who are interested in helping us create something great here. I am going to place NPOV and Factual Dispute tags on the article until the blatant POV and untruths are removed. I welcome you to improve any of the proposed definitions or submit one of their own. While we will never come to a consensus with those who want to keep the definition undefined, I feel quite confident that anyone proposing an improvement to a definition that conveys information will be taken seriously. --Zephram Stark 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Professor Stevens, with his extensive contributions history of one, seems to have gone off and left you in the lurch, Zeph. Back to being a lone voice in the wilderness until the next sockpuppet appears. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No emergency here, just more comments from the peanut gallery. I'm going to make a radical proposal that we simply ignore anyone not trying to improve the article. --Zephram Stark 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to ignore everyone who's being a nuisance, I foresee tricky problems of self-reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal from a f*cking Jew

As one of the "fucking Jews" that Stark has made many personal attacks against, I object to his continued hijacking of the discussion on the page and to his pretending to be interested in improving it. I think it's quite telling that he continues to ignore the fact that there is already a definition of terrorism page that is helpful in this discussion, or that he continues to suggest original research definitions and support them with known sockpuppets. He even had me convinced for a minute that EKDK was not a sock, until I remembered that EKDK was the one who claimed that he and his college friends use the term "FISA-terrorism" all the time. Riiiight. I am happy to support changes in the current intro to the article but I am very uncomfortable with any input at all from Mr. Stark, no matter how "constructive" it appears on the surface, because I do not trust his input at all. He has made it impossible for me to assume good faith. He keeps imposing "tests" on the definitions people propose in order to steer things back to his OR definition. Then he invents sock puppets like "Professor Stevens" who chime in at just the right time. It is appalling to me that people are taking seriously his suggestion that we have this discussion on his terms only. The only voices I have seen worth ignoring in this discussion are those of Mr. Stark and his sockpuppets.--csloat 22:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, for the millionth time, and these dimwitted attempts to portray me as such are TIRESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Administration knows I'm not, those who contacted me, so GROW UP csloat! I am here as an individual, and any contributions I make need not be slurred by your erroneous assumptions.--EKBK 15:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I happen to have first-hand knowledge that Jews have sex because otherwise I wouldn't be here. I don't know what the mating habits of Jews have to do with this article anyway. --Zephram Stark 00:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I like you Commodore. I've seen you contribute extensively to other articles and I would love to have your unbiased input on the proposals above. There's no hidden agenda here. I want the same thing that you say you want, a great article. We can do that together if you want. --Zephram Stark 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Examples without parameters or a consistent definition are blatant POV

If you look through the history and archives of these discussions, you will notice dozens of people trying to create a definitive introduction for the article. One reason to do so is because the article references examples of the definition. Since there is no definition, these examples rely on nothing except the personal bias of the author. Until we can create a definition to apply to the examples, I think it's safe to say that they are POV. --Zephram Stark 14:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What they don't want you to know

The people who want to keep terrorism undefined have sunk to a new low. Now they don't even want you to know what Osama bin Laden said about motivations behind the September 11, 2001 attacks. Here is the section in its entirety. If you think that any part of it is relevant to an article on terrorism, please click here and push [Save Page]. It doesn't matter if you have ever edited something or not. You can still express your opinion about the relevance of the following information. If you are an editor who doesn't want to get on anyone's bad side, but wants to do the right thing, just work anonymously without logging in. Here is the section in question. You decide if any of it could possibly be relevant to an article on terrorism. --Zephram Stark 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, an invitation to his own sockpuppets. How charming. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, those are real people you are dissing, while making yourself look rather silly in the process. --Zephram Stark 15:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The Importance of Objectively Defining Terrorism

In his New York Times bestseller, The President of Good and Evil, the eminent Jewish philosopher Peter Singer tries to make distinctions between the coercive actions of the United States government and the alleged terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Singer notes the use of intentions as the defining element in President George W. Bush’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly in November 2001: “In this world there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where the line is drawn. Yet there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent.”

The United States unquestionably kills innocent people with its bombs and guns during its invasions. As the enforcement arm of U.N. sanctions against Iraq, the U.N. admits that U.S. intervention directly resulted in the deaths of over 800,000 children under the age of five. Since “murder of the innocent” certainly applies to the United States government, Singer observes that the critical term in Bush’s speech must be “deliberate.” By making intention an issue, Bush draws a black-and-white distinction between American murder of the innocent and Al-Qaeda murder of the innocent: bad guys intend to hurt the innocent while good guys only hurt the innocent because of collateral damage. Bush is essentially arguing that conventional warfare—-destruction and murder for the purpose of reducing an enemy’s physical ability to fight—-is morally acceptable, while terrorism—-destruction and murder for the purpose of coercion—-is morally reprehensible.

Singer then quotes Osama bin Laden in an October 2001 interview with Al Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alouni. bin Laden said that the men who carried out the attack “intended to destroy the strongest military power in the world, to attack the Pentagon that houses more than 64,000 employees, a military center that houses the strength and the military intelligence.” About the World Trade Center towers, bin Laden said, “The towers are an economic power and not a children’s school. Those that were there are men that supported the biggest economic power in the world.” By bin Laden’s own mouth, the intention of the September 11, 2001 attack was a conventional warfare strike against the biggest military and economic threats to his countrymen. Since no coercion has been associated with the attack, it becomes hard to create a definition of terrorism that allows for the 2001 attacks against the United States mainland. Harder still would be the creation of a definition that also holds the United States government innocent for enforcing U.N. sanctions to coerce the Iraqi sovereign government by murdering over a million innocent Iraqi civilians. Singer says, “If we allow Bush to justify acts that he knew would kill innocents by saying that killing innocents was not his intention, then we should be aware that others, too, can use the same distinction.”

---

Request for Comment

Talk:Terrorism - Are quotes from Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, and Peter Singer from his NYT bestseller about intentions behind the September 11, 2001 attack relevant to an article on terrorism? 15:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This section keeps getting reverted out of existence. The explanations in history are:

Alex Bakharev m (I do not think this long passage is relevant, so revert)

Jpgordon (rv POV & OR)

BrandonYusufToropov (rv (snore))

Carbonite (RV)

Ashenai (reverted NPOV tag)

Carbonite (rv tag and text added in bad faith by likely sockpuppet)

The responses are:

Zephram Stark (Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for the September 11, 2001 attacks are entirely relevant to an article on Terrorism. If you think it's too long, edit it, but do no change the relevant cited sources.)

Zephram Stark (How can quotes from Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, and a New York Times bestseller be POV and OR? Your bias is showing. Please do not war edit. Use discussion page. An RfC will be filed if continued)

Zephram Stark (Would an NPOV dispute tag be too much to ask for, just to show that a dispute exists over the reason you are deleting this cited and relevant information?)

71.38.227.2 (If you call me a sockpuppet, I'll kick your ass. I never knew Osama said that. It's important and it's going to stay if I have any say so.)

EKBK (Why are you trying to block this information?)

---

Please comment on what you see happening here. I believe that Osama bin Laden's stated reasons for the September 11, 2001 attack are relevant to an article on terrorism. Yet, they are being reverted out of existence. Even an attempt to say that a dispute about it exists is being reverted. Administrators are calling those who support the inclusion of the bin Laden quote "sockpuppets," which is an implied threat that they will be blocked or banned if they express their opinions. Last time that this happened, in this same article, more than a dozen innocent people were blocked or "permablocked" indefinitely. --Zephram Stark 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I went looking for the text that you and the anons have been trying to add so I could understand the issue. I found two things:

• America as a "murderer" and terrorist power - Aside from the obvious character attack, why this one country? I see no good reason for bashing Bush or U.S. in an article on terrorism. A truer representation would attack war in general, and that would be a subjective interpretation. Bush didn't invent military action. If I were to pick a single country to represent a nation as a terrorist, i.e. "terrorizing" innocents, I would pick Israel for destroying homes of innocent parents of suicide bombers or Palestine and Iraq, formerly, for supporting, encouraging, and even paying the bombers and their families for an attack. It still isn't pertinent to this article. I could see it as a separate article - but I think it already exists.
• A poorly formulated rationalization for Osama's attack on America. - So what? A one-sided justification for killing innocents (towers as an economic power of its own? c'mon. does this make the twin towers a world entity? Republic of WTC? Do they have a flag?) that reads like a manifesto's book-jacket blurb. I'm pretty sure this ground is already covered in articles on Sept 11 and Osama.

The "supporters" seem to be identical to your purpose in method and text. Any established editors chiming in for this suggested change? - Tεxτurε 18:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of Singer's comparison of the two quotes. Singer wasn't trying to villainize or exonerate either side. He was trying to show that no single definition of terrorism made one side guilty and the other side innocent. I think that Singer's comparison is the reason why this article has gone four years without a definition. --Zephram Stark 18:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you see an anectodal piece that few other readers would see. I see it as I described above and I believe many would. And, yes, I do see terrorism as guilty. Imposing "terror" on innocents to change government is guilty. Are governments guilty of other things? Sure. Terrorism? No. This article is about terrorism, not what the U.S. may have done that was not intended to "terrorize" civilians. This article should remain about terrorism and not about civilian casualties outside of that intent. There are several other articles that discuss government's guilt. That has nothing to do with terrorizing innocents. Murdering innocents? Debatable, but not terror. - Tεxτurε 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason I used Israel as an example is that it was clearly to terrorize other potential bomber families into avoiding the destruction of their home and possible loss of life. (It doesn't work.) I could see a valid argument of that as "terrorism". - Tεxτurε 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you that the quotes in the book are factual. The book is written as a serious analysis that was also on the New York Times bestseller list. What is the definition of terrorism from which you derive your examples? How do you quantify what is terrorism and what is not? --Zephram Stark 18:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you not think that the analysis is "scientific"? (You removed the word from your comment.) - Tεxτurε 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I would consider it a scientific analysis, but I didn't want to get side-tracked on whether or not you think it is. The argument is just as strong without that word. --Zephram Stark 21:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have not questioned if the quotes are factual. I have questioned your grouping and arrangement of the quotes and the appropriateness of including them in this article. I have suggested that other articles do, or could, include such information. - Tεxτurε 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I welcome edits, if you think it could be written better, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose of those that deleted the information. They seem to want people to have no access to bin Laden's quote on why he committed that atrocity. --Zephram Stark 21:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, they just don't want the article to contain an editorial essay by you. – Smyth\^talk 10:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Not wanting to have editorial essays has been your contention all along, but I always suspected there was more to it than that. After all, most of the information in the currently-locked version is un-cited and blatantly untrue in its allusions that terrorism essentially doesn't have a definition. Wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt, however, I created a section composed entirely of verified quotes and summaries from the U.S. President, Osama bin Laden, and the New York Times bestseller on the subject of terrorism. Everything was fully cited and couldn't be more relevant to the subject of terrorism. Apparently without even thinking about the meaning of your standard rhetoric, you still called it an "editorial essay by you," the section was still deleted, anyone expressing their opinion about the importance of that section was still labeled a "sockpuppet" or "trouble maker," and a lock was still placed on the deleted version. Given these circumstances, can one derive anything from your actions but a motive of blatant corruption?

Obstructing information only gives it more power, even when the method of obstruction is an attempt to confuse or undefine the term. Call me the Fleet Enema of Wikipedia if you will, but four years without a definition makes "terrorism" one hell of a backed up system. --Zephram Stark 14:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration against Zephram Stark

Since many of the editors of this page have been involved with Zephram Stark, I am placing notice that arbitration against him has been requested. Please add any comments or relevant information. Carbonite | Talk 16:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot? If you don't want people to call you on your corruption, stop being corrupt. It's that simple. Trying to kill the messenger won't do you any good because everything you do on Wikipedia is transparent. That's the beauty of it. Anyone who wants to see if your accusations have merit is going to come to the same conclusion that they did the last time, that you are an idiot. --Zephram Stark 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That comment is a perfect example of why arbitration was requested. Carbonite | Talk 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Then let me rephrase. Carbonite, don't you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot? If you don't want people to call you on your corruption, stop being corrupt. It's that simple. Trying to kill the messenger won't do you any good because everything you do on Wikipedia is transparent. That's the beauty of it. Anyone who wants to see if your accusations have merit is going to come to the same conclusion that they did the last time: that your accusations of "sockpuppets" are unfounded, that you are the one disrupting the article on terrorism while I am actively trying to resolve differences, and that your ridiculous allegations fall squarely into the definition of idiocy. --Zephram Stark 17:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's what arbitration is for. And this isn't arbitration against you; Carbonite is speaking incorrectly. It's arbitration with you; the history of arbitration here shows that parties commencing the arbitration often find themselves having to make serious concessions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That's cool, because I'm willing to do anything as long as the articles aren't negatively affected, and my only request would be that he stop following me around deleting and reverting my contributions. --Zephram Stark 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreement to Ignore Personal Comments

From this point on, I'm going to ignore anyone making snide comments or doing anything but improving the article. Most of the people contributing to this discussion over the past six months want the introduction to be definitive. If we don't let the others sidetrack us, we can get the job done.

If you are willing to post here for the sole purpose of improving the article, while ignoring anyone making personal attacks, please sign below.

I agree --Zephram Stark 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly! I've been watching this page for some time now, and it seems people have a problem when it comes to someone disagreeing with them if a power struggle is involved. --EKBK 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, I've been implementing this myself for some time now, as you can see, by ignoring you as much as possible. – Smyth\^talk 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. I've been following Smyth's policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree - (Easy to do coming in late...) - Tεxτurε 21:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Six Proposals

Anyone who wants to contribute to discussion in this section, please sign above that you will make a good faith effort to promote consensus. (If you think consensus means a vote or ignoring anyone's feelings on the subject, please look it up.)

Professor Stevens Proposal

How does everyone feel about the Professor Stevens Proposal?

• I feel that Professor Stevens may be starting at a level more basic than what is needed. I'm sure it's true that we can all agree "Terrorism is a philosophy" without really defining what that philosophy involves or how true it is. That's like saying terrorism a word, without defining the meaning of the word. In a classroom setting, it may be a good place to start, but I also think that, during the course of discussion, other agreed attributes of the philosophy can be achieved. I would like to see if there is any other "common ground" before we post any proposal to the article page. --Zephram Stark 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I feel that pure original research from suspected sockpuppets should be ignored, particularly as the current article is in reasonably good shape. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I feel that if there is room for improvement, improvement is always welcome in this forum.--EKBK 18:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, it appears that your statement is mostly a personal comment - I thought you agreed not to make any. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How about we each delete our obvious personal attacks now and try again? --Zephram Stark 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I deleted mine. Ego has no place here.--EKBK 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I did not like this proposal because I feel that the philosophical aspect should not be the initial and defining face of the article. Terrorism to the world is not a philosophy. It is only a philosophy after you get past what it is in everyday life. - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What is it in everyday life? --Zephram Stark 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is bombings and fear of bombings (or other violence directed at civilians) in Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, London, America, Indonesia, etc. - Tεxτurε 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• I think it's just flat-out wrong: terrorism is a method, not a philosophy. Does anyone doubt that if the various terrorist organizations of the world had stealth fighters, modern mobile armor, and guided missles, very few of them would ever bother with attacking civilians? As Clausewitz said of war, terrorism is politics by other means. Marsden 20:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My country has stealth fighters, modern mobile armor and guided missiles, but we still attack civilians for the purpose of "persuading" other governments to "support American interests abroad." I think the article on Conventional warfare nails it: "The general purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating his ability to engage in conventional warfare." Any other purpose amounts to terrorism. It's the idea that you can control people through fear. The types of weapons used to produce terror are irrelevant. --Zephram Stark 01:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• That doesn't logically follow. Saying that "any other purpose amounts to terrorism" is like saying that anyone who isn't white is black. Obviously, that isn't true. - Tεxτurε 14:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• The above logical argument isn't based one thing following another, but from the self-evident nature of warfare. There are only two ways engage an enemy: by physically reducing the enemies ability to fight (conventional warfare), or through the systematic use of terror. We can undefine "terrorism" and pretend that it doesn't mean the systematic use of terror any more, but whatever word we coin to take its place becomes the alternative to conventional warfare. Obviously we need a word to describe the philosophy of trying to control people through intense fear in order to talk about it. What word should we use? Should we coin a new one because President Bush has declared something that obviously isn't terrorism to be terrorism, or should we tell President Bush that the United States government doesn't get to redefine our words to support his propaganda wars? --Zephram Stark 15:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be your interpretation (making it black and white) since I can see a whole list of engaging an enemy:
    • physically reducing the enemies ability to fight
    • use of terror
    • assassination (officials, not civilians)
    • blockade/embargo
    • economic and political sanctions
    • economic warfare
    • supporting insurgents (and, no, that isn't necessarily terrorists. Revolutionaries attacking only government sites are not considered terrorists. Those who do not take action to "induce terror".)
    • covert operations
    • (and since you mentioned it) propaganda warfare (such as "Voice of America" and "Tokyo Rose")
  • Some of these listed could be debated. The fact remains that there is more than just physically attacking the enemy through warfare and use of terror. Terrorism is not the only alternative to conventional warfare. How would you explain the cold war? - Tεxτurε 17:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not those things are terrorism depends entirely on your definition of terrorism. If you define terrorism in terms of intent, like President Bush does, engaging the enemy can either be with the intent of destroying his capabilities, or with the intent of intimidation. All of those the items you listed above fall into one or both of those categories. Therefore, if intent to intimidate is part of your definition of terrorism, every way of engaging the enemy is either Conventional warfare, Political terrorism, or some combination of the two. --Zephram Stark 20:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how propoganda or economic sanctions (often internationally imposed) can be considered either conventional war or terrorism. - Tεxτurε 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  BTW, I am not President Bush. I don't think we are framing this article based on politically motivated definitions. - Tεxτurε 22:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is the first one I've seen that's better than Political terrorism. --Black Angus 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• "The definition of the term has become a battleground in a war to promote or reject that philosophy." (Professor Stevens) Maybe the best example is this discussion on how to define it. --Black Angus 17:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite Proposal

How does everyone feel about the Hipocrite Proposal?

• Not bad, but incomplete. I think it could be better.--EKBK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• It is a very good start. The two times it references terrorism as necessarily being "unlawful" and a "crime" put a definite pro-existing-government spin on it. If that had been the definition of terrorism two hundred years ago, it couldn't have been used to describe the first noted act of terrorism: the Reign of Terror. --Zephram Stark 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I like this best. See below where I think it should be added with JayJG's bullet list - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not horrible. Marsden 20:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL. Does that mean you like this one best since "not horrible" is better than your opinion of the others? :) - Tεxτurε 21:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that follows. Sometimes "not horrible" is as good as it gets. What might actually be better, however, would be to get rid of the hand-wringing at the beginning of the "current consensus" version, and instead to do as broad a poll as possible of which of the qualities of the list following the first paragraph people identify with terrorism. Or maybe even, more subtly, to describe a series of different events, and ask people if they qualify as terrorism. For myself, the resonnating qualities are political motivation, non-military targets, and intent to intimidate (as opposed to the Sherman-esque "normal" war aim of destroying the enemies ability -- not will -- to resist). The rest, I think, are just there out of various groups wanting to window themselves out of the fun, particularly states with organized militaries, although if I had to add one more quality, it would be, perpetrated by units or individuals not clearly designated as military -- not sure how an invisible stealth bomber or a uniformed sniper in a gilly suit would fit into that. Marsden 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think two of your stipulations conflict. Isn't it possible that a unit or individual clearly designated as military could act entirely with the purpose of intimidation, as opposed to the purpose of conventional warfare? --Zephram Stark 13:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes; you may note that I added that as an "if must add" quality. The distinction is, generally, that in "normal" war, it is just a contest of who is stronger, with no resorting to hiding behind trees or wearing camoflage or stealth or civilian disguises. No one actually fights this way any more, but somehow the idea has survived as a normative notion. If you at least dress as military, you are saying, "here I am, but no one dare stop me," as opposed to actually trying not to get killed. Marsden 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think your idea about starting the article with the descriptions of terrorism in which everyone agrees is excellent. Would you be so kind as to start a discussion section with your thoughts on that and the poll that you suggested? --Zephram Stark 13:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It probably won't get much response, but I'll give it a shot. Marsden 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• I think Hipocrite's version is a good place to start from (here is a diff). In the interests of bringing the page back to life, will everyone agree to unprotect the page and make those changes? – Smyth\^talk 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stark Proposal

How does everyone feel about the Stark Proposal?

• I like this one the best. It's concise. One way to make it better might be to shorten it in a few spots.--EKBK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• This proposal definitely conveys the most information. Sources for some of the information have been questioned, but that is something we can easily fix. --Zephram Stark 21:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I liked this the least. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this would begin the intro with a dictionary perspective. - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not very direct, is it? Worse than Hipocrite's. Marsden 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Three things I like about it are that it starts with a broad description of terrorism from the most agreed upon source available, the introduction allows us to use "terrorism" in a sentence based on no other information, and it can be used to objectively define the parameters of potential examples. --Zephram Stark 13:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• When I click on the link, I don't see any proposal. --Black Angus 22:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User:El_C deleted it under the guise of a premature seventh archiving. Notice how everything disappeared that doesn't match his POV. Now he'll claim ignorance, restore the damage he did, and apologize. --Zephram Stark 23:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks like he's an administrator, so scratch the apology—-that's not going to happen. Administrators don't have to apologize because there's nobody to hold them accountable for their actions. If User:El_C is less corrupt than Jayjg, he'll at least restore the things that he damaged. --Zephram Stark 23:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He deleted one of the versions we're talking about, but at least he kept the "Proposal from a f*cking Jew" section. We sure need that here. LMAO, see what happens when there is no administrator oversight? --Zephram Stark 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Clicks will work now. It was, of course, in the archive file, accessible to anyone who bothered to look, from the list of archives on the top of this page. I've edited the link above to make it easier to access. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

X Proposal

How does everyone feel about the X Proposal?

• I think "The word "terrorism" is controversial, with no universally agreed definition." is a silly and untrue statement, especially for an encyclopedic reference. We know from the standard dictionary definition that one does in fact exist. Perhaps it's a controversial TOPIC, but the fact a definition exists is quite clear to anyone able to access a dictionary. For that reason, the entire article is sort of soured for me when I read it. It's wishy-washy.--EKBK 19:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do I need to dig up that list I made some weeks back of sources agreeing with the position that there is not a universally agreed upon definition? It's hardly "silly", and it's obviously not "untrue" that there is not a universally agreed upon definition; pointing to one dictionary definition shows that that definition is universally agreed upon by one dictionary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• The two minimum usability requirements of any encyclopedia article are: 1) it helps the reader use the term in a sentence; and 2) it helps the reader identify things that are examples of the term. This proposal utterly fails both of those minimum tests. --Zephram Stark 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You continue to conflate "dictionary" with "encyclopedia". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you believe is the purpose of an encyclopedia article? --Zephram Stark 01:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• I prefer only the style and bullets from this added to Hipocrite's proposal. See below. - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Even more indirect -- and worse -- than Stark's. Marsden 20:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• I feel queasy and yellow green around the gills. --Black Angus 22:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

A few people have proposed deleting this article and using Political terrorism instead since almost all usage of the term is in reference to political intentions and because the general consensus is that the Political terrorism article is much better than this one. How do you feel about using the Political terrorism article as a foundation and adding the parts of this article that we want to keep?

• Only Zephram Stark has ever proposed this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • From which orifice do you pull this stuff? I've never proposed it. Smyth was the last one who thought it "may be indicated." --Zephram Stark 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Where exactly did he say that? Smyth suggested that Political terrorism be merged here (not at all what you suggest) after you posted this here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • There's this really cool search function you can use to avoid "foot in mouth." You just push Ctrl+F and type in the phrase you want to find. --Zephram Stark 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • There's an even cooler feature you can use to avoid "yet another false claim" syndrome. You just create a link to the edit substantiating your claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Let me make sure I understand the rules: 1) You pull something completely out of your ass to accuse me of, 2) I have to prove my innocence, and 3) provide links, or else you'll accuse me of making "yet another false claim?" And what happens after I prove my innocence with links? Will you say that you are sorry? Will you stop pulling things out of your ass? Will you avoid accusing people without any evidence whatsoever? Judging from your actions the last time I had to show my innocence of your fabricated accusations, I seriously doubt it, but prove me wrong. Tell me that if I provide a link to Smyth's idea that the articles be merged that you will apologize and stop accusing me of things when you have no absolutely no evidence. --Zephram Stark 03:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
            • See Smyth's comment below. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I suggested that they be merged because Political terrorism overlaps considerably with this page, and doesn't contain anything clearly distinguishing itself from Terrorism. That doesn't mean I agree with Zephram that Political terrorism is a much better page, or that we should use it as a basis for future editing of Terrorism. – Smyth\^talk 06:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Smyth, do you recall, did you make that suggestion before or after Zephram posted this proposal here? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • In fact I half-heartedly made this suggestion several weeks ago. Of course, it was for the reasons I described above, not the ones Zephram gives. – Smyth\^talk 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Still working on that apology, Jayjg? Perhaps I can help you with the wording, "Dear Mr. Stark, I'm really sorry for making stuff up and then expecting you to prove your innocence. In the case of the dozens of times I've accused you of making sockpuppets, I realize now that you couldn't have possibly used fourteen different non-proxy IPs from all over the world, and that continuing to accuse you even after knowing this must have made me look pretty idiotic. Then, on top of that, to claim that your motivations were not true in regard to this proposal must have really made me look like a flop-eared goofball, but that is all behind me now. From this point forth, I Jayjg, will never accuse you of anything unless I have some evidence of it. Additionally, I Jayjg, promise to stop following you around deleting and reverting your articles. In fact, I Jayjg, will look up the word consensus and try to use it as per the definition!" --Zephram Stark 20:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Did you read what Smyth said? Only you have ever proposed "deleting this article and using Political terrorism instead since almost all usage of the term is in reference to political intentions and because the general consensus is that the Political terrorism article is much better than this one". Just you, Zephram. Smyth suggested merging that article into this, for entirely different reasons. It appears you have been proved wrong again; are you preparing your apology? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• OMG, this is just getting too funny. I am not the "only" one who "has ever proposed this." Do you know why? Because I never proposed it, you blithering idiot! How many times are you going to keep sticking your foot in your mouth? I've told you three times that I never proposed it. You merely have to do a ten second search to verify that, but you still keep accusing me of proposing it. I did not propose it. I have never proposed it. I am against a merge and only mentioned that this was an option out of respect for those who have proposed it. If you say that I proposed it again, I'm going to pee myself laughing. --Zephram Stark 01:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg said you said "replace", not "merge". He has never accused of proposing a merger. Nice example of slight of hand there, though not very well executed. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Calton. Not only are my pants drenched, but there is coffee all over my keyboard. I can't believe the lengths you guys will go to keep up this facade that administrators are above reproach. Do you honestly think you can confuse the issue enough that nobody understands it? "Only Zephram Stark has ever proposed this" is a lie based on absolutely nothing, no evidence, no proof, not even allusion. When I call Jayjg on it, he accuses me of not proving my innocence in the matter. How do you guys think you can get away with this when Wikipedia is transparent? We can see everything that happens here. Anyone can read the text above and know the score. Even if you delete it, they can look at history. It's simply impossible to treat other editors as subordinates and get away with it here at Wikipedia. Our editing power is equal. The strength of our contributions is all that matters. Status as administrator doesn't add weight to anything. --Zephram Stark 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeph, just to change course for a second, what does this mean, in your opinion? BrandonYusufToropov 20:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Depending on who you talk to, it either means that Jayjg should stop attacking me or that I should stop defending myself when he attacks (as per the discussion above). In trying to decide whether or not I should stand against corruption, I always defer to the words of one of the greatest thinkers of our time: "In a perfect world, everyone could have perfect integrity. In an imperfect world, we can still have perfect integrity if we are willing to go against the system." --Zephram Stark 23:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - People will look for this article, not "political terrorism". Political terrorism is already defined as a subset. I do not agree that they should be merged. - Tεxτurε 20:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We would, of course, call the article "Terrorism." --Zephram Stark 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - You stooges have messed up this entry so bad I don't want you going anywhere near Political terrorism. My website links to Political terrorism instead of this one because is this one's wack. --Black Angus 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Split Proposal

A few people have proposed creating two articles from this one: one for Terrorism, and another for Terrorist. How do you feel about defining the terms separately?

• Only Zephram Stark has proposed this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Very funny. In private conversation, one of the sysops suggested that you created GoCowboys. For all I know, you did. It certainly served your purpose. --Zephram Stark 21:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL! Another un-named person agreeing with you. Did "they" suggest I created "Professor Stevens" and "EKBK" as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It was actually proposed as a joke, and it wasn't one in which I agreed, but it did bring up the interesting point that it would be more feasible for you to have created Go_Cowboys (based on the proximity of IPs) than for me to have done it. --Zephram Stark 21:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tεxτurε 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Black Angus 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional Proposals

Can I have one from column A and one from Column B? Hipocrite + current version?

• I couldn't find a way to convey this under the options listed above. Hipocrite has the best leading paragraph but I really like the bullet list of "ingredients" in JayJG's proposal. - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you merge the two, clean it up, and make a proposal? --Zephram Stark 00:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see some more comments first. All I am saying is I like the first paragraph from one and the bullets from the other. No proposal other than that yet. - Tεxτurε 17:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect and incorporate Hypocrite's proposal?

• I think Hipocrite's version is a good place to start from (here is a diff). In the interests of bringing the page back to life, will everyone agree to unprotect the page and make those changes? – Smyth\^talk 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I moved this here so it could be seen. You've got my support. - Tεxτurε 19:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with continued Consensus Hipocrite's version is definitely a step in the right direction. At least it is an article, and not a cop-out. I would be for starting with that as long as everyone keeps working toward a consensus here in talk so that it doesn't turn into another revert war. --Zephram Stark 19:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that Consensus is not the operating policy here; Wikipedia:Consensus is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Black Angus 23:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but -- I think the article should be changed then refrozen pending further discussion. Marsden 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As requested on WP:RFPP and supported above, unprotected. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism, piece by piece

The current article offers violence, target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy as qualities by which terrorism is defined. Following loosely upon this, I'm going to offer my own list, and ask that people comment on how important each piece is in defining a particular act as terrorism or not. Marsden 22:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Political Motive. I tend to think that an act carried out as part of a political campaign better fits into my understanding of terrorism than the same thing done for simple extortion, for example.

On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being most important, I give this a 6.

Marsden 22:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agree 7 --Zephram Stark 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conflict. By this I mean the underlying conflict of which the potentially terrorist act is part. It occurs to me that if, in the middle of World War II, English agents had infiltrated Germany and set off an explosive in the middle of a shopping mall or elementary school or residential area, we might call it a war crime, but I don't think we'd call it terrorism. I think that, as A.P. Schmid alludes in the current article, terrorism is not generally considered to occur in the context of a conventional war; either it occurs in a time of peace or as part of an unconventional, asymmetric war. This, I think, incorporates "perpetrator:" if the perpetrator is clearly designated as belonging to some military, then what he does falls into conventional war, though it may still be a war crime.

I give this an 8. Marsden

• Disagree 9 —-Of course A.P. Schmid is going to say that. Otherwise, he would be implicating himself. The size of the army doesn't give its cause more legitimacy. Terrorism is terrorism. --Zephram Stark 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Target. The target should be far removed from the support structure of any military power -- direct attacks on military are generally not terrorism, nor are attacks on military industry. Attacks on economies that fund a given military power, probably terrorism. Attacks on kids, definitely terrorism, if other characteristics fit.

I give this a 10. Marsden

• Disagree 7 —-If attacks on military command and military industry (globalization) aren't terrorism, then the attacks of September 11, 2001 weren't terrorist attacks. I'm not saying that the 9/11 attacks were acts of terrorism, in fact very few objective definitions can allow for that to be the case. I'm just saying that we have to be careful in changing the definition to make ourselves blameless, that we don't make the other guy blameless too. --Zephram Stark 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Legitimacy. I'm not so certain about this one. I'm not certain that terrorism is by definition illegitimate -- had someone escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto in the middle of the Holocaust, and blown up a German elementary school in order to terrorize the Nazis into stopping what they were doing, would that have been wrong? As a practical matter, I don't think it would have been effective: Giulio Douhet had proposed using terror through air power to win wars long ago, and so far -- even with the use of atomic weapons -- its effectiveness has proven disappointing (the Japanese, by the way, were pretty much willing as a people to keep fighting even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed; it was the Emperor who could see that it was a lost cause, and that Japan needed to surrender). Unfortunately, I think that long, protracted, and planned terrorist campaigns have proven to be effective -- Robert Pape (no Wiki article yet) has apparently found that suicide bombing campaigns have worked. Had the Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto been able to mount a terrorist campaign against German civilians that had a hope of stopping the Nazis, would it have been justified? I think it absolutely would have been. Here, I think things should be measured as with conventional war: if the underlying cause is legitimate, and if the means employed to serve it is both necessary and does not outweigh in its awfulness the legitimacy of the underlying cause, then a lot can be justified.

I give this a 2. Marsden

• Disagree 10 —-This is the most important aspect of terrorism. If we are ever to understand terrorism and end it, we must discuss issues of legitimacy. You touch on the two parts of legitimacy: effectiveness and morality. They are two separate issues bound by one force: natural rights. Morality is bound because the self-evident truth of natural rights takes precedence over any construct of morality, even murder. Effectiveness is bound because terrorism can only be effective if it reduces a person's natural right to contribute to society. When one says, "I have nothing to lose," he means that suicide for a cause has become his most effective method of contributing, in which case his greatest natural right to liberty supercedes his secondary natural right to life.

Natural rights are parts of humanity that we can't give away, like the right to breath. Government cannot take away your right to breath because it would be impossible for someone to hold their breath forever. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also natural rights. We wouldn't be thinking, social beings without these properties. Government cannot take away these rights either because people need to make decisions and socialize in order for society to function. When some members of a group become inherently "more equal," it is against human nature for others to adopt an attitude of subservience. Instead, we see the kind of terrorism that is starting to take over Wikipedia with corrupt administrators like Jayjg around. Natural Law, a law that is unalienable to humanity, requires people to be equal, one way or the other. It is our choice as to whether we want that equality to be through terrorism or through government by consent of the governed. --Zephram Stark 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add more categories. Marsden

Prescription and Description

I think there is an easier and less confusing way of saying "it has descriptive and prescriptive applications." While the statement is true, prescription and description have different meanings inside and outside the field of linguistics. In purely linguistic terms, the following quote is untrue and not even internally consistent: "is often used in its prescriptive (normative) sense to signal that the political violence of an enemy is immoral." Linguistically, prescription is the laying down or prescribing of normative rules of language, while description refers to common usage. From a purely linguistic perspective, the phrase should read "is often used in its descriptive sense to signal that the political violence of an enemy is immoral." Of course, from a non-linguistic point of view, the opposite could be argued.

To eliminate this confusion, I propose that we remove references to the terms "prescriptive," "descriptive," and "normative," replacing them with common phrases that convey more information. For example: "In practice, the exact definition varies - it has political and philosophical applications, and is often used in its political sense to signal that the violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified." What say ye? --Zephram Stark 17:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Kafziel 18:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Not without a source backing it up; otherwise it's original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The only way this is going to work is if we concentrate on making the article better. Not only is the existing "normative" sentence uncited, but it is also untrue and not even internally consistent. Making an uncited assertion that terrorism has political and philosophical applications adds self-evident truth, internal consistency, and useful information to the article. I could definitely give you examples of both applications, but would that make any difference? Wouldn't you then just confuse the issue by claiming it was irrelevant, like you did in the Talk:State_terrorism discussion? --Zephram Stark 19:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Source? A source to say that the word terrorism has political and philosophical applications? A source to say that the word is used to apply negative connotations to certain acts of violence? That's just reality. There's no source for that stuff - or, rather, since there are countless sources for both of those points, there's no point in citing a single source. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, but I'm not going to start a whole new argument. Kafziel 20:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's not original research, and as common as you say, then there should indeed be countless sources for it. Citing one or two of the best (i.e. most encyclopedic) of those sources would be an excellent way of both improving the article, and following Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no confusion. The words "prescriptive" and "normative" refer to the purpose of the use of the word, i.e., to signal that the violence of an enemy is immoral, etc. In the context, nobody could possibly think the text is referring to normative statements about how the word should be used. – Smyth\^talk 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again!! Jayjg engages in circle-talk while Smyth creates a diversion. Next, we would all latch onto the diversion, because it's so easy to disprove, and we would pride ourselves in winning that argument. We would forget about the objective, which was to improve the article.

This old song and dance was the reason it took us four years to create an objective definition for terrorism, but it's not going to happen any more. Every time you guys try to confuse the issue from here on out, it's only going to be a reflection on you. We are going to forge ahead and make this into a great article. --Zephram Stark 23:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem lies with the Wikipedia page on description and prescription, not with the words. By all means, look for a different way of saying it, but "political and philosophical" is meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you still talking? I'm glad I took a break from this page.-csloat 23:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Commodore! I respect your opinion, so I wanted to get your take on this issue. Which phrase do you like better:

• "In practice, the exact definition varies - it has descriptive and prescriptive applications, and is often used in its prescriptive (normative) sense to signal that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified." -or-
• "In practice, the exact definition varies - it has political and philosophical applications, and is often used in its political sense to signal that the violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified." --Zephram Stark 00:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither. They both seem like excessively obtuse ways of coming back to the absurd neologism "pejorative terrorism." I don't think it's wrong to include the fact that the term is sometimes used pejoratively, but I think that in defining the term we should stick to the definitions of terrorism employed by experts in the field.

Damnit, you did it again Zeph -- through an insincere compliment and a phony solicitation for advice, you managed to make me ignore for a brief moment the fact that your participation on this page been disruptive, and as is clear from the above, you've managed to convince others to allow you to continue to dominate the agenda here. Congratulations. I'm going back on my break.... --csloat 00:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Me too. – Smyth\^talk 06:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You crack me up. You almost forgot that I was supposed to be a bad guy. Damnit!! ROFL Anyway, thanks for your opinion. --Zephram Stark 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you think of a better way of describing the two main categories of these definitions? As I see it, we have one category that is the original meaning, and another that is used to vilify an enemy. As a cunning linguist, I use the terms "prescriptive" and "descriptive" all the time, but I would use them in exactly the opposite way that Hipocrite has. From a linguistic standpoint, "descriptive" would be how the term is commonly used to vilify an enemy. "Prescriptively," however, it is silly to create another definition for evil. We have a society full of them. We need a word that objectively describes the act of terrorizing in reference to the thought process behind it. Why do people do this? Why do they think it is effective? Is it effective? Is it less effective in certain circumstances? If it is not effective, will people stop doing it? What measure of effectiveness do they use? We can only ask and answer these critical questions if we have the linguistic tools necessary to talk about terrorism on a philosophical basis. I realize that nobody wants to implicate themselves, but we can't make self-victimization our priority in defining terrorism if we ever want to discuss the term objectively in an effort to find a solution. --Zephram Stark 03:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support the change of wording with an emphasis on philosophy. What else can we say about the politics of terrorism besides "Its bad. Its really bad. Heres some bad stuff that bad men did because they're bad." Most of the article reads that way because it concentrates on political bombast. To list acts of terrorism without a source insults my intelligence. Who says these are acts of terrorism? Certainly not everyone, nor are these the most cited acts of terrorism. You know your list of terrorism is nation-centric when it doesn't even include engagements of self-described "shock and awe." What is the difference between saying "We're going to shock and awe them," and "We're going to terrorize them?" --Black Angus 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support —— Jayjg asked for a source for this sentence: "In practice, the exact definition varies - it has political and philosophical applications, and is often used in its political sense to signal that the violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified." User:Kafziel responded that the truth of that statement was so evident that it could be considered reality. Indeed, it is hard for me to assume the good faith of Jayjg on this one as well, but I'm willing to humor Jayjg if that will make him happy. I just have one question for Jayjg. If I can provide multiple solid sources for the above sentence, will you then support it? --Zephram Stark 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Words of Osama bin Laden

I propose that we add what Osama bin Laden had to say about the motivation behind and intent of the September 11, 2001 attacks in his documented interview with Tayseer Alouni in October 2001. I know that this is information that many people don't want others to hear, but can anyone argue that his saying it is not completely factual, cited, documented, and immensely relevant to an encyclopedia article on "terrorism?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zephram Stark (talk • contribs) 15:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me try to answer that question by posing another. Should we, right now, incorporate what Charles Manson had to say about the motivation behind and intent of the Tate/Labianca murders in the article Murder? Assuming, of course, that we source the quote really, really, well? BrandonYusufToropov 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It belongs in the Osama bin Laden article; a brief pointer to it at most might make sense here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent analogy, Brandon. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support the subsumption - This article says "The deadliest events described as terrorism and not known to have been sponsored by a state were the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia." If we have evidence that 911 was not terrorism, it is appropriate to include it as well. --Black Angus 16:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - This isn't the correct article to delve into detail on one attack. It does not add to this article. If it isn't in the Sept 11th article, consider adding it there. - Tεxτurε 19:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support — If President Bush hadn't called the September 11, 2001 attacks acts of terrorism, we wouldn't be scrambling to redefine the term to support his example. Wonder if he was wrong? Wonder if, as bin Laden claims, it was an act of conventional warfare? Wouldn't that make it a lot easier to define terrorism? Trying to fit the definition around the examples has obviously been an impossible task. We haven't even come close in the four years since the founding of Wikipedia. Perhaps we should turn it around and let an objective definition illuminate examples. --Zephram Stark 21:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you came up with the proposal, it's not entirely surprising you support it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any way you could define terrorism without including at least the WTC attack, if not the Pentagon. Even the Pentagon attack involved using an airplane full of civilians as a weapon. Your comment that we're "scrambling to redefine the term to support his example" is utterly baseless. Isomorphic 05:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, while there has been controversy on this article, it has mainly involved whether the definition fit the actions of the United States and other state actors. I can't recall anyone but you claiming that September 11th wasn't terrorism. Isomorphic 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that for us to decide? Shouldn't we present the facts and let people reach their own conclusions? --Zephram Stark 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Texture. --Ashenai 12:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I fully expect Bert, Ernie, Beanie, Cecil, Punch, Judy, and Pinocchio to oppose me on this. BrandonYusufToropov 23:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The quote in question is the one contained in the third paragraph of this edit, which also discusses other material from a book by Peter Singer which indirectly includes the quote. I do not oppose the quote itself; it is entirely relevant to this page. But the correct approach is to incorporate it into the article in its proper place with a link to its original source, not to attach a lengthy section at the end with no context which appears to be intended only to advance the POV of a particular book. – Smyth\^talk 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to drop Singer's context for the quote, that's fine with me, but what would you replace it with? I thought that one of the best selling books on terrorism would be as relevant of a context as you could get, especially since it includes and contrasts a quote by President Bush. --Zephram Stark 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Why not quote from Carlos the Jackal? Or Sergei Nechaev for that matter? The quote from OBL belongs on the OBL page or the 9/11 attacks page perhaps but it really doesn't help this article (unless it is in a section about al-Qaeda, though of course there is already a page there). I also don't understand why people still pay attention to Zephram stark at all, let alone allow him to demand (and receive!) a vote on every silly thing he wants to change on this page.--csloat 10:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it help if I used the magic word? ;) --Zephram Stark 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Source of Examples

Under EXAMPLES it says "have been described as domestic and international terrorism." Could we have a source? Who described it? You? The U.S.A. State Department? If I were to list examples based on neutral sources, it would be strikingly different than this one. --Black Angus 17:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It follows that if someone knows that the statements were made, that they would also know who uttered them. However, I'm not sure that the person who added that section is still around. It seems to be a throwback from the time when this article was very U.S./U.K. nation-centric. I propose that we define examples based on specific criteria. If a criterion is that some official source has declared it to be an example, I propose that we cite that source. I further propose that we delete any example that is not based on at least one specific criterion. What say ye? --Zephram Stark 15:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Entry Kicks Off with US DoD Definition?

It doesn't seem appropriate to me to start the article with the US Dept. of Defense definition of terrorism. Shouldn't this come from an educational or journalistic or referential (as in dictionary) source more representative of all people? I would also state that I think that a critical distinction of terrorism is that it targets civilians. That should be in the opening paragraph. DanielM 00:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized." Do you like that one better? --Zephram Stark 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely much better. The coverage of the article is not restricted to the US. Then, the OED definition is preferrable. coco

I regard the source as representative of a broader range of people than US DoD, but the key point that terrorism must target civilians is not there. I would say "the use or threat of violence against a civilian, noncombatant person or population in order to further a political objective." What is your opinion of that? DanielM 10:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That's still a debatable definition of terrorism. Many consider attacks against 'valid' military targets using the tactics common to terrorists to still be terrorism. For instance, the Basque movement in Spain attacks the national infrastructure (a valid military target) while intentionally announcing their targets to avoid civilian casualties by giving time to evacuate. However, the Basque movement is still listed as a terrorist organization by the US government.--Primalchaos 10:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• In the weeks leading up to the invasion of Southern Iraq in Operation Desert Storm, I asked why we were pounding the desert with bunker busters day and night when it was highly improbable that any of them would do any damage. I got answers like, "We're putting the fear of God into them," or "We're giving those terrorists a taste of their own medicine." Put simply, we were trying to terrorize the soldiers in those deep underground bunkers. It worked great. When we finally invaded, most of those soldiers begged us to take them and be merciful. Some of them were physically twitching with anxiety. That was an effective use of terrorism. --Black Angus 19:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, when you say "target" civilians, you are implying motive. Civilians get killed in war all the time, so you are hinging the definition of terrorism on whether or not the main intent was to hurt civilians or to damage the military and economic power of an enemy. Do you know that you share this definition with both President Bush and Osama bin Laden? Both claim that their intent was to damage military and economic capabilities. One of the most popular books on the subject was written by the acclaimed philosopher Peter Singer: Talk:Terrorism#The_Importance_of_Objectively_Defining_Terrorism. As evidenced in these discussions, there is much misconception about the examples of terrorism. Our purpose, in writing this article, is to convey information that will minimize these misconceptions. --Zephram Stark 14:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Responding to comment of Primalchaos. An attack against a military target, for example a squad of soldiers, with a method used by terrorists, for example a suicide bomber vest, is not an act of terrorism. Terrorism HAS to include a civilian target otherwise the term loses meaning and becomes a hollow epithet thrown around to cast a military adversary in a negative light. The categorization by the US State Dept. of the Basque separatists as terrorists is no doubt drawn from several factors, not just whether or not they phone in their bombs, but this also goes back to my point, why allow the definition of a single agency of any country to be the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry? Responding to comment of Zephram Stark. In my judgement the definition of terrorism does in fact hinge on whether the main intent is to attack civilians. The claims similar to "we only attacked the civilians to damage the economic or military-industrial capacity of the enemy" have to be evaluated on a case-by-case to determine whether they are specious or not. This article... this article has some real problems in my view. Outside of the US DoD definition being treated authoritatively, there's a section on separatism which is insufficiently tied in to the subject and really has no place in the article, unless it were to be overhauled to bring it back to the point somehow. DanielM 11:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it. I'll back you up. Just remember that no matter what you say, someone will violently disagree with you. So cite sources for everything. If you can find a more neutral quote that still meets your minimum requirements for terrorism, that would definitely be an improvement. Nobody with any integrity will delete something that is an improvement. --Black Angus 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed...?

It seems like this talk page seems to draw lots of editors with fewer than 100 edits. The strange thing is that these editors all seem to agree with each other. Interesting... Carbonite | Talk 12:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've notice that too. It seems that everyone who is not a corrupt administrator knows how to talk in plain English and is interested in improving the article. So, I guess, thanks for the complement. --Zephram Stark 14:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks, even oblique ones. I'm not an administrator (corrupt or otherwise), last I checked. But every one of your edits seems to be a calculated effort to make it more and more difficult for me (and, I assume, for others) to assume good faith on your part.

(My apologies if I'm being presumptuous by entering this debate; I haven't had too much contact with Zephram, unlike most of the people here. I just thought an "outside voice" would possibly be helpful here.) --Ashenai 14:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No aplogy needed. I agree completely. This oblique personal attack was completely uncalled for, Carbonite. I propose that we delete this section of talk and ignore people who try to interupt the process of making the article better. --Zephram Stark 14:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The next time you make a personal attack you will be blocked for disruption. Consider this your final warning. Carbonite | Talk 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I will defend myself when attacked, Carbonite. Wikipedia is not so corrupt that you can come in here and disrupt our discussion with your innuendo and then threaten me when I call you on it. We've had about enough of your obvious ulterior motives. We are trying to discuss an article in order to make it better. If you have something to add to that discussion, please do. If you do not, please refrain from starting sections like this with the obvious intent of intimidating those editors with "fewer than 100 edits." --Zephram Stark 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would you consider an observation about "new" editors to be an attack on you? As for "threatening" you, as long as you cease your personnel attacks, my statement is irrelevant. Carbonite | Talk 15:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Because I am a new editor. I haven't bought into the social system around here, and I never will as long as it involves disrupting constructive talk about an article with threats and innuendo with the blatantly obvious (since you've done it numerous times) motive of intimidating editors that aren't part of your social hierarchy. To all of those editors, I say, "The Wikipedia social hierarchy is nothing but hot air. I have been bullied and beaten by these administrators, but I am still standing. As long as I am standing, you can know that Wikipedia is not completely corrupt." --Zephram Stark 15:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I already warned you about personal attacks. You are now blocked for 24 hours. Incidentally, as you have well over 100 edits, my original statement was not aimed at you. Carbonite | Talk 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, he has been editing for almost three months, and has almost 750 edits. At this point I don't think anyone would consider him to be a "new editor". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that was clever. I chuckled.

Now, to fully illuminate the blindingly obvious: I was addressing you, Zephram Stark, with the first paragraph ("please don't engage in personal attacks, etc"), and addressing everyone (you included) with the parenthetical second. --Ashenai 14:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Zephram Stark 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No clarification was necessary, of course, since everyone (including you) understood exactly who he was referring to. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, I know what you’re saying and you’re dead wrong. There are people, like me, who have no connection to Zephram Stark who agree with what he’s saying. --66.88.219.51 17:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...a anonymous IP with only one edit who seems drawn to this talk page. See, this is what I find strange and interesting. Carbonite | Talk 17:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Get real! Do you really think NOBODY reads this? Just because people don't always comment, does not mean they aren't watching thse pages. I was accused over and over of being a sockpuppet-I didn't even know what that was, and I PROVED to the editors I wrote to that I wasn't, but I was still very insulted. Did you ever stop to think that maybe people get sick and tired of your asinine insinuations and the way you try to prevent good editors from making changes you don't necessarily agree with? Sorry, but some people won't stand by and wimp out when they have an opinion.--EKBK 17:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You PROVED you weren't a sockpuppet? Show us this proof. – Smyth\^talk 18:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think EKBK can answer you because he was blocked indefinitely for being me by User:Slimvirgin. Of course EKBK is not me, but neither were the other fifteen people Slimvirgin and Jayjg blocked under that pretense. --Zephram Stark 23:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, 15 other people I blocked as puppets of you? What were their names? Are they still blocked? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not just you; Slimvirgin as well. I don't know the names of the people who you blocked, but I know that they are not me. I haven't created any sockpuppets and I think you know it. Some of them got only temporary blocks, but the effect was the same. I'm sure they will never try to express their opinion here again. That seems to go equally well for the people involved in the above conversation. Our discussion was really starting to get productive before this section interrupted it. Congratulations. --Zephram Stark 02:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think you know that you recruited and used puppets of some sort or another, whether sockpuppets or flesh-puppets. Certainly everyone else knows it. Regardless, it hardly matters which. And I've never seen a discussion in which you have been involved which has been "productive". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If you consider recruitment of flesh-puppets to be inviting your friends over for the sole purpose of disrupting and intimidating other editors, you are the only one guilty of that. I have no flesh-puppets. Be that as it may, I can see why you would think I haven't provided anything "productive." Bin Laden's stated motivations for, what this article calls, "the deadliest events described as terrorism" isn't something that your Judaism WikiProject would want people to know about, now is it? --Zephram Stark 15:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeph will you cut it out? You've already been reprimanded about your earlier comment calling us "fucking Jews" because we don't want your original research in this article; now you go for more oblique but equally insensitive references. We're sick of your sockpuppets and sick of your condescending attitude. I don't particularly care anymore whether you have anything intelligent to say about this article; your conduct has made it impossible to take seriously anything you say.--csloat 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As a member of the House of Israel, I can assure you that some Jews have sex. I'm sorry if this offends you. --Zephram Stark 01:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, someone who writes

This place is a joke. It's too bad, because it had possibilities before all you fucking Jews [emphasis mine] came along. The funny thing is, I never had anything against you [emphasis mine] before this. Now I see what people mean.

is trying to convince people that he is himself Jewish? Pull the other one, pal. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not quote it in context? What are you afraid of? --Zephram Stark 02:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Need some help? No problem. Here's the rest, "Since I have a Jewish bloodline, I certainly wasn't talking about the Jews as a race, only as a group within Wikipedia that have an admitted agenda. Grow up, and stop playing the victim. Why do there have to be gangs of this or that trying to redefine history to make the past look better? Why can't we all just be human? Why can't we let our words mean something? This makes me sick." --Zephram Stark 02:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

All us fucking Jews have good memories and know how to read edit histories -- and the time stamps that show that the "context", in particular your claim to Jewishness, came almost a day after the original gross bigotry was put in place. If you're trying to increase your credibility here, you're failing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you can do all that, you can also click on one of the histories to see exactly what I was talking about. I'll leave that up to you, though. The mating habits of Jews have nothing to do with this article, so let's get back on track.

When I say, "Why can't we let our words mean something," I was talking about words like "terrorism" that used to mean the same thing to everyone. We could convey exact information to anyone by using the term. When I talk to my friends, we still use the term as defined by Webster's or by the OED: "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation.” I pity the poor souls who turn to Wikipedia for an explanation of terrorism. All they get is government propaganda and more confusion than came here with.

It has been argued that "terrorism" should be defined with a confusing article because the term is used in a confusing way. I don't think this is true. Everyone I have talked to uses the term to mean one of two things: "the systematic use of terror for coercion or intimidation" or "violence against civilians for the purpose of evil." They never mean both definitions at the same time, nor do they mean anything very different from these definitions. There are simply two definitions, the classic one we have used for two hundred years, and the new hype used to start wars. The new hype is always in reference to a bad guy, not a philosophy or necessarily even a particular action. Therefore, the hype is best described as "terrorist" or "terrorist action," while the philosophy that requires no derision is best described as "terrorism." We don't have to create a disambiguation page for the two usages if we let one describe a "terrorist" and the other describe "terrorism." After all that is their context.

It's almost like people are trying to undefine "terrorism" around here—-like they are afraid to give us a word that describes the philosophical aspects of it. Will that enable us to think too much about it? Will it allow us to question our own methods? Will it help us to identify the enemy? Are those who try to sidetrack the discussion with personal attacks frightened that we will identify them? Why will the response to this attempt to talk about terrorism be a personal attack having little or nothing to do with the article? --Zephram Stark 03:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

State sponsors

If it wasn't overrevert by accident, what are those "protocols denouncing terrorist sponsorship or activity" please ? Taw 14:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)