Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)

1. Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive
2. Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development) archive 2

Tweak

Wikipedia does not directly label individuals or groups as terrorists. Wikipedia may indicate that a person or group has acknowledged being terrorist, if the acknowledgement is clear and made of free will. Wikipedia can attribute accusations or labeling of terrorism by serious sources. In this context: Serious sources include goverment organisations, significant nongovernment organisations and major media outlets. Serious sources should not include letters to the editor, blogs, and sources without clear identification. Maurreen 17:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully accept this tweaked version, though it'd be nice to clarify just exactly how they're sourced, and just how exactly Wikipedia indicates, and how the terrorist acknowledges. A statement like "I masterminded the bombing of the UN headquarters in order to promote fear into accomplishing so-and-so objective" could be perceived by someone to be an acknowledgement of being a terrorist. Also this policy seems to be missing anything relating to individual acts, which personally I feel should obey the same policy, but am open to other suggestions on. Sarge Baldy 19:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

My comments raised above apply equally to this tweak. Some people (Timothy McVeigh, Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal, to name but three) are always going to be perceived by the overwhelming majority of people as a terrorist. It is egregious to imply otherwise. I think previous discussions and votes have made clear that there is not consensus for a ban on calling individuals or groups as terrorists. If those opposing the use of the word "terrorist" cannot accept this, then there will not be a policy. jguk 20:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jguk, to a "standard" American POV people like Timothy McVeigh, Mohammed Atta etc are always going to be perceived to be terrorist just like how to a "standard" European POV George W Bush is a right wing wackjob who shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects. In wiki's POV ie NPOV neither of these is an acceptable thing to say.

It seems like you agree with my main point: there will be no consensus in the wider Wikipedia community for this proposal. That's why I'm proposing to move on from this proposal to something that will gain consensus. jguk 00:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not quite. I agree that there wouldn't be consensus for a statement like "Mohammed Atta is not a terrorist." The policy does not say that. I hope that we can get consensus here on this page, and then with a bit of effort we can get consensus in the general wiki community. I don't kid myself by thinking this is a "slam dunk", but I don't think any other policy would have an easy time either. Steven jones 01:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sarge, I deliberately stayed away from acts in this policy. If we can get agreement on this part of the policy, then we can work toward the harder topic of individual acts.

Maurreen, The tweak looks fine to me Steven jones 00:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism as methodology

The other day I wanted to describe the expansion of al-Qaeda from an Afghan jihadi movement into a broader pan-Islamic militant network. Part of this involves using terrorism as a tactic. In such instances I think it's difficult to beat around the bush, because it's necessary to use the term to describe the strategy employed. So, I think an important distinction should be made between "terrorism" and "terrorist". The former can be used as a descriptive label for an event, a military strategy, etc. The latter has taken on much more of an ideological meaning. Compare to the words "hijacker" and "hijacking". If someone said we have to go "get the hijackers", i.e., some group of people who employ hijacking as part of their political strategy, this would seem slightly ridiculous to us. The same is no longer true of "terrorist", which suggests someone with an ideology of terror. I think this gives us some clarity: "terrorism" should be used to describe a methodology, e.g., the 9/11 attacks were an act of terrorism against the people of New York, or the Hiroshima bombing was an act of terrorism against the people of that city, etc. But we should be circumspect about calling people "terrorists", or using "terrorism" to suggest their ideology. Graft 16:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree it is preferable not to refer to people as "terrorists". I suggest you could refer to "terrorism against civilians" as a tactic, presuming that's the sense your using it in. Then's there isn't ambiguity about what you mean: you're using terrorism in a descrptive way not a pejorative way, and are differentiating between guerrilla warfare against the security forces and terrorism against civilians. Kingal86 17:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactamente. "Terrorism" is fine so long as it describes methodology; it becomes POV when it is used as an ideological label. Graft 18:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how easily this nuanced approach may become lost. For example, what is the difference between an "act of terrorism" and a "terrorist act". I wonder why we should reinvent the wheel, though. Both Reuters and the British Guardian – as well as many others – have policies about usage of words like "terrorist". Why not consult them? Tarek 23:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found this at the Guardian's site. It doesn't answer our question, but it's good food for thought:

terrorism/terrorists - A terrorist act is directed against victims chosen either randomly or as symbols of what is being opposed (eg workers in the World Trade Centre, tourists in Bali, Spanish commuters). It is designed to create a state of terror in the minds of a particular group of people or the public as a whole for political or social ends. Although most terrorist acts are violent, you can be a terrorist without being overtly violent (eg poisoning a water supply or gassing people on the underground).

Does having a good cause make a difference? The UN says no: "Criminal acts calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Whatever one's political sympathies, Palestinian suicide bombers, al-Qaida, most paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, and Eta can all reasonably be regarded as terrorists (or at least groups some of whose members perpetrate terrorist acts).

This doesn't mean that we don't have to be very careful about using the term: it is still a subjective judgment (one person's terrorist may be another person's freedom fighter). Often, alternatives such as militants, radicals, separatists, etc may be more appropriate and less controversial, but this is a difficult area: references to the "resistance", for example, imply more sympathy to a cause than calling such fighters "insurgents". The most important thing is that, in news reporting, we are not seen - because of the language we use - to be taking sides. [1]

Tarek 23:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Policies of other publications

If anyone is interested in policies of other publications, let me know. I might be able to get some that aren't online. I believe The Washington Post has a policy. Maurreen 06:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV in a wider way

I'm not sure this is worth bringing up, but here goes ... if the group is worried about labeling terrorists, can't we try to avoid stereotyping Americans, etc.? Can't we just all be Wikipedians? Maurreen 06:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess this one was aimed at me. Sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I was trying to refer to a Point of View of a large group of people, I was not refering to the people in any other way, and I was not trying to degrade their POV. Once again sorry if I offended anyone Steven jones 10:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I probably over-reacted because of other stuff. Maurreen 07:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Draft No. 4, people and groups only

I think this discussion is progressing and getting more orderly. Thanks all for your comments. After a little fine-tuning:

"Wikipedia does not directly label individuals or groups as terrorists. Wikipedia may indicate that a person or group has acknowledged being terrorist, if under free will they apply to themselves the word “terrorist” or a foreign-language equivalent. Wikipedia can attribute accusations or labeling of terrorism by serious sources. In this context: Serious sources include goverment organisations, significant nongovernment organisations and major media outlets. Serious sources should not include letters to the editor, blogs, and sources without clear identification."

NOTES:

1. Just for the sake of clarity, I don't agree with this draft, but I'm not vehement about it and I appear to be in the minority. I have no trouble following consensus.
2. This group is apparently at least near consensus on this part of the policy. We can still handle "terrorist" acts, lists, categories or whatever. The fact that we haven't yet doesn't need to hold this up.

Lists and categories proposal

Wikipedia may list or categorize acknowledged terrorists and those labeled by serious sources as terrorist. They may be listed or categorized separately or together. However, such lists and categories will follow the spirit of no direct labeling by Wikipedia (See drafts above). One way to accomplish this is by enclosing the word “terrorist” in quotation marks.

A perhaps better analogous example is at List of war crimes, which begins: “This article attempts to summarise incidents which may be perceived as either War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace, or Crimes against Humanity.” Maurreen 07:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your first two sentences appear reasonablue until I asked myself - would one reference to someone being a terrorist in the Times of London, or by the BBC really be enough? Does Zimbabwe's proscribing of the BBC mean the BBC should be in a category of "Terrorist organisations"? The spirit behind the first two sentences is right, IMO, but the phrasing "labelled by serious sources as terrorist" is too ill-defined.

Your last two sentences, I disagree with. I would certainly argue against any Category using quotation marks. What does it mean - we're cateogorising things in this way but we don't really trust ourselves? jguk 07:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

categories de-facto amount to unattributed labelling. all such categories should at least contain suitable disclaimers (as is already the case). government sources are not sufficient for this. While it is ok to say "the US administration" or "the Russian government have condemned the incident as terrorist attack", this alone does not warrant inclusion in a category, as especially these regimes have a tendency to abuse the term. As for "war crimes", usually they only apply to crimes that are committed in the course of a declared war. the GI who shot the wounded Iraqi may be guilty of a war crime. 9/11 was not a 'war crime', it was, sorry, a 'terrorist attack'. dab 08:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like lists or categories of something this contentious and emotive. At best I think we will end up with something like List of war crimes, a lovely NPOV introduction then an almost content free list. That said I could agree the policy with 2 tweaks. The lists should be called something like "list of accussed terrorist", I think this makes it clearer than something like quotes around the word. Secondly, I think we must always have the accuser in the list. This makes it clear that it is not wiki making the accusation. Steven jones 10:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attacks and tactics proposal

“If there is no dispute by serious sources (see drafts above) that an attack, tactic or method is of terrorist nature, it may be labeled as such. Otherwise, not.” Maurreen 07:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too precise, I'm afraid. That would mean that if anyone finds one source saying it is or may not be terrorist, the word should not be used. In practice, this may be little different from an outright ban. jguk 07:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do you mean "labeled"? Isn't the idea to only label things as terrorism with sources (ie. The attack, condemned nearly unanimously throughout major Western media as an act of terrorism" [source] [source] [source]); if so, what reason is there to not use the label if a single source disagrees? Why not just use the same policy for regarding it as terrorism as not, and allow sentences of dissent (ie. "However, the American Civil Liberties Union strongly disagrees with such a classification, citing that blah blah and blah" [source]) as well as of assent. That way you leave the two sides of the argument on equal grounds for criticism, which I feel is the neutral approach to the issue. Sarge Baldy 08:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

In Guerrilla#Post_World_War_II:

Although both Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries carried out terrorist atrocities against civilians which were often tit-for-tat, a case can be made for saying that attacks such as the IRA carried out on British soldiers at Warrenpoint in 1979 was a well planned guerrilla ambush [2].

No specific terrorist act has been mentioned so would you say that the sentence is inappropriate for Wikipedia?

If one has followed the situation in Northern Ireland over the decades, one will know that little there is as it appears on the surface.

What about killing of informers is that a terrorist attack or not? What is an informer? It may be that at the time all serious sources either did not know that the person killed was an informer or would not admit to it. Later it comes out that they were. If the organisation, that does the killing, says that they were an informer at the time should that be taken into account even if serious sources say that they were not? Ie should any consideration of the motives as expressed by the organisation which commits the act be taken into consideration?

The IRA let of some very big bombs in "the City" (of London) designed to be so large that the insurance companies would refuse to pay out insurance claims. This was a political tactic to force the British government to pay the compensation claims as war damage. Something the British government did not want to concede. It worked. If the motive for the bombs had been aimed to kill instead of destroy property would they have been terrorist bombings? If not then how does one distinguish between types of bombings? Who does one believe when it comes to motive?

If a teenager is kneecapped for stealing cars and joy riding:

• Is the kneecapping a criminal act or a terrorist act?
• What if the motive for doing the kneecapping is political, (to show that a paramilitary supports the local community by the use of deterrence to stop joyriding) and not revenge for that specific teenager stealing cars. Is one allowed to call it a terrorist act as it is designed to deter the target group of tanagers by terrorising them?
• since the peace process the British Government has do a 180 degree turn on this one because it can only support the peace process if theses are seen as criminal acts and not terrorist ones. The labelling of such an act as terrorist or criminal by Wikipedia automatically gives the article a bias on the question of the "peace process".

What about necklacing in SA. It was counter-terrorism terrorism to counter the terrorism used by the state to turn people in the first place. Basically there was nothing the state could do to a potential informer, that was more awful than being burnt alive by a mixture of rubber and petrol. But if one was in SA at the time none of the local "serious sources" would have ascribed to idea the state was as terrorising anyone. What are reliable "serious sources"?

Food for thought. In Sierra Leone the rebles "Revolutionary United Front" gave victims (who were often children too young to be in their army) the choice of one short or two long. What is the correct adjective for such acts if Reuters never use the term terrorist? Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reuters doesn't use 'terrorist' not because it's 'too harsh' but because it's 'too emotional'. Atrocities will be recognized as atrocities, if you just let the facts speak for themselves. 'terrorist' is only useful if it provides informatino as to the ideological or tactical background of the incident, not as a label of how bad it was. dab 09:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think terrorist atrocities in the exampe above is fair use (but I won't start an edit war about it either). It would be easy to change the sentence to be attributed (eg. accused each other), or just drop the atrocities to make it sound less like a rant. dab 09:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this policy works. With it I can get away with claiming almost any minor or historical event as terrorist, simply because no serious source has cared enough to dispute it. I think we need to have some positive logic as well, before wiki itself starts labeling. The big problem I have is that I cannot see what this additional crieteria can be. Steven jones 11:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But many atrocities were committed against civilians in Northern Ireland. The reason for many of the atrocities was to cause terror. So why is it a rant or emotional to use the phrase "terrorist atrocities"? in the correct context? To use phrases like "accused each other" becomes just a form of weasel words as a work around to a suggested policy. Philip Baird Shearer 13:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article on Provisional Irish Republican Army strikes me as showing that attributed use of "terrorist" gets the point over just as much as using the term unqualified, perhaps even more so, so why cling to not attributing it? dave souza 20:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because the article on the IRA is far more detailed than an article about guerrilla warfare needs to be about terrorist activities in NI. The guerrilla article tries to summarise 30 years of warfare in a sentence. How does one attribute a one sentence summary of a war without making it a quote? In PIRA article you refer to they do not attempt to distinguish between terrorist and guerrilla attacks. "The PIRA's guerilla or 'terrorist' campaign" could be seen as siding with the PIRA, because why is guerrilla not in quotes if terrorist is? The article only list news papers who have at some time called the PIRA terrorists they do not list any news organisations which do not, (like Reuters) or mention that the wording of new media change over time (like CNN). As for the other political parties in Ireland and Britain I think one can use the Mandy Rice-Davies argument "he would say that wouldn't he?". I think that putting quotation marks around "'atrocities' ... and the killing of two children at Warrington" is strange. It could be read that Wikipedia does not hold that it was an an atrocity. I do not know anyone (even apologists for the IRA) who would describe that incident as anything other than an atrocity. (Because apologists would argue that a bomb in a British pub targets adults, who in a democracy are part responsible for their government's actions. But a bomb outside a McDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime targets children and that is much more difficult to justify). Equally as the guerrilla article says the "attacks such as the IRA carried out on British soldiers at Warrenpoint in 1979 was a well planned guerrilla ambush". I would be surprised if the details were not part of the syllabus at Sandhurst. If the prose are to be precise and exact then why be mealy mouthed and weasely about it? Because as I have highlighed in the PIRA article, they can lead to exactly the wrong inference being drawn, from that which it was intended to imply. (Think Air quotes for the reason that an unatributed quote as in 'atrocities' may be taken as sarcasm or irony) Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other options

If anyone is disatisfied with any proposals, it would help to suggest other options. Maurreen 08:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, debating whether this newbie should delve into such a weighty matter, but I agree with the Reuters view and believe that the terms terrorist or terorrism to be too loaded and perjorative to be used by the Wikipedia in it's own accounts. My logic is working thus:

• Both words have valid usage in the dictionary sense, but, through popular usage, have become loaded and inflammitory words that invoke an emotional response which would not be NPOV

• Invoking these emotions takes away from intellectual, factual, and neutral analysis and discussion of the event, action, or person being described, which ultimately results in a poorer article

• I don't believe it appropriate to use the terror label just because a "sufficiently" reputable authority (news source, government, etc.) labels something in that manner. They are frequently afflicted by POV issues. Such descriptions can ultimately be affected by the vagaries of time and circumstance, as with the ANC (as pointed out above)

• In almost any case (examples to the contrary welcome), I believe there to be a viable phrase, term, or explanation that is both NPOV and accurate. Omitting the term would not take away from the information being described in the article but does invite a thorough description of the acts, person(s), or events

• Quoting individuals, governments, etc. describing acts as terrrorism or individuals as terrorists is perfectly OK. At that point, it's not the 'pedia making the statement, merely a recitation of a fact or event. Wouldn't matter if it were the BBC or Joe's Weblog- if it's attributed, it needs to stand on its own merit as an authority and can be argued on such.

Thus, I believe any use of the terms terrorist or terrorism require that that usage be qualified, vis "self-described terrorist" for those describing themselves as terrorists, or for an event, "an act of violence intended to invoke fear".

Just my two bits.. Atombaby 06:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4023451.stm -- What happens when the IRA say 1974 pub bombings 'were wrong'? Can they then be described as "self-described terrorist[s]", or do they have to use the phrase "We were terrorists..." before they can be so described? Can one now describe the bombings in pubs in Birmingham as a terrorist incident? If not why not? If yes then you are suggesting that wording of Wikipedia articles can be influenced by "self-described terrorist[s]".

"An act of violence intended to invoke fear" may not have anything to do with politics and so not be a terrorist incident. See the example I gave above about "teenager is kneecapped for stealing cars and joy riding". The wording will tend to place the article into a political context. Now you may be able to get around this with a whole paragraph describing the nuances of politics in NI but that level of detail may not be appropriate in all articles.

You can remove the word "terrorist" from every article which uses the word, but if all you do is replace it with an euphemism what has been gained? In Britain thanks to Private Eye#Examples of humour, the phrase "He was tired and emotional" has a meaning which will be lost on most foreigners, but is well known to anyone who has more than a passing interest in politics in Britain to mean "he was drunk but he can't take the author to court for saying it". Would Wikipeadia be improved if every reference to drunk was replaced with "tired and emotional"? Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed UN Definition of Terrorism

Don't know if this is going to be any help - couldn't see anything about it on the archive pages. Noticed a reference in the Economist this week, in a "By Invitation" article, with Kofi Annan (sadly, it's subscription-only, so I can't offer a link) but I went to the source on the UN website (WARNING: it's big) http://www.un.org/secureworld/report.pdf and found the following in paragraph 164, sub-paragraph d), which seeks to define a terrorist act as:

"any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or seriously bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act".

i.e. this would not be NOT an exhaustive definition (because the contents of the various conventions contain more) but my reading is that it would imply that a government at war with another country could still be committing an act of terrorism if they directed that war against non-combatants (as well as potentially comitting a war crime).

This doesn't help with a specific policy for Wikipedia, and it needs to be ratified before becoming official, but it should be a good source for NPOV debates, particularly since the members of the panel that produced it are drawn from an extremely wide base of countries (the permanent 5 plus Russia, Japan, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Egypt, Brazil and others). --MJW 17:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. Probably any definition would leave some things open to interpretation. Maurreen 17:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about the right of self defense? If a state believes that an enemy state or potential enemy state may use weapons of mass destruction (WMD), does a state have the right to threaten retaliate with WMD and if attacked with WMD retaliate in kind? If so is the threat to retaliate in kind, or the act of retaliation, an act of terrorism? The wording above would suggest that it is.

In a command economy during a total war, who is a none-combatant? If private property has been abolished and every adult works for a state and is in the state militia either full time or part-time, who is a civilian and who is a soldier?

In a none command economy are paramilitary police a legitimate military target to be intimidate? What about civilian police. What about part-time police, can they only be targeted when in uniform?...

Who decides what "is intended to cause death or seriously bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate". The RAF during the middle period of World War II intended to destroy civilian property which was useful to the German war economy which in the context of total war that was defined by the British Cabinet to mean any property not specifically prohibited under the laws of war. Part of the intent was to sap German moral by destroying their houses so making it difficult for them to concentrate on their war related jobs while trying to find a new house for themselves and their families. If a city has had all the supermarkets, and most of the houses and all of the bridges etc destroyed, it is likely to make the mind wander from the job an impair the production of the "thing-ummy-bob that's going to win the war". So it would be argued in a court of law that the intent was not to "cause death or seriously bodily harm", but that finer point was probably lost on the relatives of those killed in the firestorms generated by the RAF.

After the experiences of World War II it could be plausibly argued that as massive area bombardment ("city busting") did not sap the moral of any country's population or governments subjected to it, (if anything in reinforced the determination of each country to win the war), therefore if city busting is carried out, it is not "to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government" it is to destroy the material needed for an enemy to prosecute a war. If massive aerial bombardment is not covered by such a phrase what is the point of it? Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a the intent is to target enemy civilians in enemy held territory, not to "intimidate a population, or to compel a Government" but to destroy the will of an enemy armed forces to resist through their lack of ability to protect the home front, then such an action is acceptable under this definition.

To be plausible the definition needs to include some way of saying "reckless endangerment" of "foreseen consequences" as well as intent. No matter what the intent is, if a resonable person (disinterested third party) could foresee that an the action would be "to cause death...".

BTW one can almost garantee that if the 5 members of the security council are willing to agree to a paragraph about such a thing, it is intended to limt others actions and not their own! Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't use that definition. We should say "Joe Blow describes Operation Bojinka as terrorist" and the like. WhisperToMe 05:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)